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: 69
39
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think you're too MAINSTREAM Arbitrageur.

Just watch the video, there is no such thing as stupid in science for discovery.



Scientist have been socially condition by universities to have limited curiosity. Follow the Law.
I trust a 3 year old Child over a scientist any day.

Reluctance to look foolish




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I trust a 3 year old Child over a scientist any day.


Yup, you do sound consistent with that developmental level.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I trust a 3 year old Child over a scientist any day.


Yup, you do sound consistent with that developmental level.


Your right, their imagination is far more open than a closed minded scientist who have been indoctrinated
into following laws. We live in a artificial world, yet scientist will say its real.
edit on 22-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

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


Indeed, though i dont necessarily agree with his context, only the value of the concept which he is delivering. But most certainly, do not think for a single second i have any clue what im talking about



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.


Well, i did, though it was a bit vague maybe. Exploration of electromagnetic variances due to various methods of toroidal wrapping is something that has never been explored all that deeply, other than learning how to minimize the magnetism inevitably created by the electrical current. Magnetism, as a whole, has little research other than how to minimize it and reduce it while still delivering electrical current. In testing this specifically, i would include some different wrappings based on as many iterations of the pattern (fingerprint of god) as possible, instead of just a couple (like rodin does). While i have not done any research into that pattern specifically, the outcome of the coil wrap does have some interesting properties.


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.


My point was specifically that instead of spending all the time arguing, a better point could have been made with actual research, with the same amount of time put into it overall. i had already explored the subject to an extent, individual of rodin (only heard of him through this thread, actually).

But i have to say that we would have never gotten the ultra deep space field images if we were never willing to experiment with things we dont know exist.


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.


Not everyone can freely talk about everything. The most important transition we can make with scientific knowledge is into the application phase. However, getting attached to the idea of something having potential is at the core of many of the greatest discoveries in human history. i do care about the details, but if we started talking real cooperative testing, would you actually spend the time you would posting, testing? i assume you know that the more properly collected data on.. anything is better! i cant personally devote that much time to this, but the people involved in this thread spent a good amount of time already, if all the time made posting and reading the thread was added together. i would love to do what i can, though.

i guess the overall point, individual of the thread, was that instead of using your time to post and argue, it could be better used to research and educate. Maybe that would mean a reduced post count, but it would be "making the posts count" a whole lot more.
edit on 22-4-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I trust a 3 year old Child over a scientist any day.


Yup, you do sound consistent with that developmental level.


Your right, their imagination is far more open than a closed minded scientist who have been indoctrinated
into following laws. We live in a artificial world, yet scientist will say its real.
edit on 22-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)


Imagine me up a cure for cancer with no medical knowledge plz, kthxbai.

For imagination of utility you must know the facts of the system you are solving the problem for. That is what scientists do: they discover these laws and principles, which inventors use to invent something new.
edit on 22-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I trust a 3 year old Child over a scientist any day.


Yup, you do sound consistent with that developmental level.


Your right, their imagination is far more open than a closed minded scientist who have been indoctrinated
into following laws. We live in a artificial world, yet scientist will say its real.
edit on 22-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)


Imagine me up a cure for cancer with no medical knowledge plz, kthxbai.

For imagination of utility you must know the facts of the system you are solving the problem for. That is what scientists do: they discover these laws and principles, which inventors use to invent something new.
edit on 22-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


You know it's fitting you should mention this... My grandmother has pancreatic cancer. I suggested a change of diet in order to create a more alkaline bloodstream then solidify the tumor/ inject with acid for surgery. That or laser remove. I referenced 2 different extracts including EBC-46. I didn't get a chance to hold a conversation with the surgeon, but my family and everyone else mentioned my recommendations were a little too extreme... Especially altering an 84 year old's diet with how her body might respond. So instead, they all decide on the whipple operation for her. Look it up...

Furthermore, my Memaw comes down with a bad case of pneumonia. My mother is forced to call 911 after farting around with her doctor for a couple of weeks. She just happened to be in the hospital room when my grandmother starts to seizure. This led to a stroke... They had to revive her and rush her off to ICU.

How does this tie in? Diet actually... Her sodium levels had dropped. Her body was purging. In response, her brain went haywire not firing correctly. As I was there, and not knowing much about the situation, the doctor pops in. He said she needed to lay off fluids and pretty much eat anything. Her body had to process sodium before they'd let her out of ICU. My first instinct was to ask about... Get this: Would it be ok for her to eat cheese? He got a sort of funny look on his face, but responded with... "Sure."

Little did he seem to realize the body can convert fats to ketones. This aids the brain in bypassing an inefficient electrical response to depleted glucose levels. Certain cheeses are high in sodium too.

No action just rolling eyes again... Imagine.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


BS... For the last time, and I repeat: Galactic Formations, Galactic Formations, Galactic Formations.

What anchors the Milky Way and every other galaxy? By what process were these observations made? What media in space develops black holes? Have you determined the "bump" with your accelerator yet?

I can sort of see where you left yourself some "outs" on our topic of debate. I suggest you fashion a few more. You'll more than likely need them.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 

Anchors? There are no anchors in space.

Love the phrase "little did he seem to realise..." - classic.
edit on 23-4-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


And would you be able to imagine any of that with no knowledge of chemistry? Again, all the imagination in the world is in vain without facts.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I think you're too MAINSTREAM Arbitrageur.

Just watch the video, there is no such thing as stupid in science for discovery.



Scientist have been socially condition by universities to have limited curiosity. Follow the Law.
I trust a 3 year old Child over a scientist any day.

Reluctance to look foolish
I watched the video. It does make some good points. There is a language barrier between mainstream scientists and laypeople who use terms differently than scientists, and in the case of that video, use terms in direct contradiction to their established meaning:

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell


Throughout his patents and marketing material, Meyer uses the terms "fuel cell" or "water fuel cell" to refer to the portion of his device in which electricity is passed through water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Meyer's use of the term in this sense is contrary to its usual meaning in science and engineering, in which such cells are conventionally called "electrolytic cells".
I've coined this "dictionary abuse" in other posts.

Now just because someone chooses to use terms and expressions contrary to accepted use doesn't necessarily mean their invention doesn't work. But words have meanings, and inventors who fail to appreciate this fact do indeed cast a shadow of doubt over themselves that can't be blamed on the scientists. If they can't think clearly enough to look up some proper terminology, which isn't that hard for terms like "fuel cell" versus "electrolytic cell", can they really think clearly enough to properly measure the inputs and outputs of a device, which is a far more complex task? I think it's a valid question. This also is part of the reason that a reluctance about looking foolish may be justifiable. Contrary to your implication that it's based only on fear, I propose that it may also be based partly on logic as I just described.

There are a couple of scientists who have come up with a creative way to cut through all the language barriers:
NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines


We need a full schematic of how the motor is built and an explanation for how the motor designer believes it to work. A video of the motor operating and the designer describing how it operates is very helpful. The designer then needs to show us how they have tested their motor. We need to see their test schematic. We need to see where they are connecting their test leads.

Also, the designer needs to test their motor under a known mechanical load. If they don’t have a dynamometer available, then the simplest way to do this is to simply have their motor lift a known weight by winding a string or flexible cable of some sort around a spindle. This will serve as their homemade “dynamometer” if you will. We need to know the amount of weight lifted, the height the weight is lifted and the speed the weight is lift to get an output power measurement. ...
Then they ask for input measurements, and a video of the test run at no load and at load, documenting the inputs and outputs. This cuts through a lot of the language barriers.


We don’t care how a motor is built. ... It could be a black box for all we care. All that really matters when you are attempting to determine whether a motor is over unity is a measurement of what is being input into the motor and a measurement of the work that is being output by the motor.
Since they primarily focus on input and output measurements, the inventor can call it anything they want to.

These scientists also have addressed the "funding" issues mentioned in that video, because they are willing to do this work in their spare time. NASA isn't supporting their work, NASA is just their day job.

PS: Back to the water powered car and the Stan Meyer link, here's a schematic:


See the "DC power supply" on the left? This source of electricity seems to be a common theme among "water powered cars" I've seen. They really run on electricity. There's a thread about a water powered truck on ATS that claims to run on water and it also runs on electricity, the water and the hydrogen produced from it are merely intermediate substances in the conversion of electrical energy to mechanical energy.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by Bobathon

...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.

...i have to say that we would have never gotten the ultra deep space field images if we were never willing to experiment with things we dont know exist.
I agree. But only because you reversed the order of the words don't and know from what I said. If you'd left them as they were, then I wouldn't agree.


i assume you know that the more properly collected data on.. anything is better! i cant personally devote that much time to this...
I assume you can appreciate the irony in these two sentences. Statistically, the more the better. In terms of time well spent, that is not necessarily the case. And when it comes to devoting time to hunting for things which we have excellent reasons to assume do not exist outside of some guy's imagination, the less time spent on it the better.

Of course there are those instances where we presume something cannot exist when in fact it does. The nature of science is that someone, somewhere, will find themselves with some reason to believe that it's worth looking into, and it will always be their responsibility to do so – and their heroic discovery if it turns out to be true.

My objection is that there are clearly many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who have the capacity to do a serious study of Rodin's claims and either present their findings as clear scientific results or develop some kind of exciting commercial device to make use of them. A small but significant fraction of these will have come across these claims at some point over the last 15 years, and been in a position to do some simple but substantial tests. Not a single one has done it. How is this possible?

If that's not convincing, take it from the other side. There are clearly many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who have come across Rodin's claims and become convinced that they are for real at some point over the past 15 years. If they're for real, then a small but significant fraction of these people will have the capacity to do a serious study and either present their findings as clear scientific results or develop some kind of exciting commercial device to make use of them. If they're so dedicated to believing in his work, anyone capable of this would surely have done it. Not a single one has done it. In the whole world. Despite constant hype. How is this possible?

There's only one answer. It's a very simple answer.

I'll tell you what's worthwhile. What's worthwhile is any effort to divert people from blind faith in this kind of populist over-hyped gobbledigook with fan sites all over the web (don't try to tell me there's a shortage of interest in this crap), and get them interested in something that's actually not completely fictional instead.

Reality is seriously underrated in some quarters, it seems.
edit on 23-4-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 

Anchors? There are no anchors in space.

Love the phrase "little did he seem to realise..." - classic.
edit on 23-4-2011 by Bobathon because: ...


You mistake verbs for nouns.

Had they assessed her condition correctly, and done blood work as she arrived, she would've started a sodium drip immediately. This would've avoided applying enough force to crack 80 year old ribs in order to restart the heart. Had my Mom not been present in the room... Well, you mainly get the point.

I doubt anyone in that particular ICU had applied knowledge of utilizing our bodies... Again, from fat conversion into ketones. This will alleviate seizures in such cases. You should enjoy the classics while they're still around.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist
 


And would you be able to imagine any of that with no knowledge of chemistry? Again, all the imagination in the world is in vain without facts.


Let me put it this way... I didn't go to school for medical history. Moreover, facts are based in truth; hence, there's a system for our universe.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Another piece of the puzzle pops up on another thread:


The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry

Link
edit on 23-4-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Why do you despise anti-gravity technology using some kind of liquid to create a vortex that can generate anti-gravity. Its addressed in the video I posted, vortex is not so crazy, but Rodin's story is, the math just isn't perfect.

TR-3B Plasma Torus Anti-Gravity Centrifuge Engine


reply to post by 547000
 


Well, we do have a cure for cancer in the video 4:30. Trust me people, there are secret discovery going on behind scientists back. Yet, buddhasystem doesn't believe in secret programs.

A New Physics Kept Secret from the World


Well, this video sure put peoples mind to the test of what is known beyond what we are lead to believe by mainstream institute.
edit on 23-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

You mistake verbs for nouns.

No, I don't.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Why do you despise anti-gravity technology
What's the relevance of you ascribing a projected emotional reaction to someone? The only thing that's relevant is that you don't have any evidence for any such thing, or any serious reason for saying it. Do you? Just random empty claims.


reply to post by 547000
 

Well, we do have a cure for cancer in the video 4:30. Trust me people, there are secret discovery going on behind scientists back. Yet, buddhasystem doesn't believe in secret programs.
What's the relevance of you ascribing presumed beliefs onto someone? The only thing that's relevant is that you don't have any evidence for any such thing or any serious reason for saying it. Do you? Just random empty claims.

Spot the theme.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by sinohptik
i assume you know that the more properly collected data on.. anything is better! i cant personally devote that much time to this...
I assume you can appreciate the irony in these two sentences.
Thanks bob.

I was going to point out the irony in that but you beat me to it so I starred your post and I agree, it's quite ironic. To paraphrase sinohptik:
"why are all you people posting here if you don't have anything concrete to contribute. I don't have anything concrete to contribute either, but I'm posting here."
If there was anything about Rodin's work connected to reality maybe we would have something more concrete to discuss.


Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Why do you despise anti-gravity technology using some kind of liquid to create a vortex that can generate anti-gravity. Its addressed in the video I posted, vortex is not so crazy, but Rodin's story is, the math just isn't perfect.
I don't despise anti-gravity, I'd love to have it if it exists. I could drive above all the traffic jams and cut my commute way down.

What I DO despise are liars, cheaters, and hoaxers. Have you listened to Ed Fouche explain how he wrote his book? He contacted a lawyer who told him he could write fictional stories about whatever he wanted to. So that's not just me calling his work fiction, that's the author himself using the word fiction.

Then alienscientist comes along and either missed that admission or chose to ignore it. But here are a few facts you can verify:
Mercury is a liquid at standard room temperature and pressure. Now there are typically two things that can make a liquid into a gas and then into a plasma:
1. Increasing the temperature, and/or
2. Lowering the pressure.

So what does this fictional proposal do to the mercury to make it plasma?
it lowers the temperature from room temperature to 150K (that's MINUS 123 degrees C), and increases the pressure to 250,000 atmospheres. either of these actions independently would make the mercury to be less likely to form plasma and combined the creation of any plasma is less likely still.

Note that mercury becomes a solid at minus 39 degrees C and he's cooling it to minus 123 degrees C. If he's trying to make mercury into a plasma, cooling it down is going in the wrong direction. But don't worry, I don't despise people like alienscientist who are too ignorant or incompetent to figure out simple things like this, I just encourage them to get more education, and since alienscientist is in school, (or was last time I checked), he's doing just that, so I hope he learns something while he's there.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





1. Increasing the temperature, and/or
2. Lowering the pressure.


What you're really pointing at is 1. frequency and 2. amplitude.

Low and behold: A more efficient jet engine...



Research and Development Viktor Schauberger - v1 Viktor Schauberger 1885 - 1958. The father and founder of implosion. His keen innate understandings into the workings of nature will teach us the how to live in harmony with the environment around us. v2 hyperbolic rotating cones as turbines, copper eggshapes in order to create vortices for water-purification, suction-vacuum-caused-vortices for air-purification, energy-creation using air/wind/water, using inwinding centripetal implosion and vortices.






Vortex Technologies / Fuel Efficiency > Engines > New Jet Engine Design Offers 25% Fuel Efficiency Increase - A new engine developed by R-Jet is called an orbiting combustor-nozzle (OCN) jet. OCN jets rotate the airflow through the engine in a vortex, rather than passing the air straight through as conventional jet engines do. Swirling the incoming air into a vortex allows for a more complete mixing of fuel and air, leading to more efficient and complete combustion of the fuel. (EcoGeek; Oct. 7, 2010)





OS:Klimator:Main_Page - Viktor Schauberger Klimator OpenSource Project, using a spinning vortex to produce heat, or cool air, i.e. a naturalesque air-conditioning device.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Why do you despise anti-gravity technology using some kind of liquid to create a vortex that can generate anti-gravity. Its addressed in the video I posted, vortex is not so crazy, but Rodin's story is, the math just isn't perfect.
I don't despise anti-gravity, I'd love to have it if it exists. I could drive above all the traffic jams and cut my commute way down.

What I DO despise are liars, cheaters, and hoaxers. Have you listened to Ed Fouche explain how he wrote his book? He contacted a lawyer who told him he could write fictional stories about whatever he wanted to. So that's not just me calling his work fiction, that's the author himself using the word fiction.

Then alienscientist comes along and either missed that admission or chose to ignore it. But here are a few facts you can verify:
Mercury is a liquid at standard room temperature and pressure. Now there are typically two things that can make a liquid into a gas and then into a plasma:
1. Increasing the temperature, and/or
2. Lowering the pressure.

So what does this fictional proposal do to the mercury to make it plasma?
it lowers the temperature from room temperature to 150K (that's MINUS 123 degrees C), and increases the pressure to 250,000 atmospheres. either of these actions independently would make the mercury to be less likely to form plasma and combined the creation of any plasma is less likely still.

Note that mercury becomes a solid at minus 39 degrees C and he's cooling it to minus 123 degrees C. If he's trying to make mercury into a plasma, cooling it down is going in the wrong direction. But don't worry, I don't despise people like alienscientist who are too ignorant or incompetent to figure out simple things like this, I just encourage them to get more education, and since alienscientist is in school, (or was last time I checked), he's doing just that, so I hope he learns something while he's there.




Arbitrageur, I can agree with you on hoaxers and liars. But I will hold out on the technology side and be open to whether there are secret black programs other then that you make very good points.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join