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: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Sure is... Spun density which accounts for the platonic solids.


I'm not sure what this means.

Does it have any relation to density functional theory (DFT)?




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Here's an interesting statement from Rodin's .pdf "Rodin Aerodynamics," page 3:


All numbers are created out of the decimal point which permanently continues to exert its influence and superimposed harmonics trinary dwell setting determining impact upon them. The pulse surging reactionless drive Primal Point of Unity is at the center of the decimal point which is the crucial entity behind the sustained existence of the rational numbers.


I had to read the first sentence five times and then diagram it grammatically before I could make any sense out of it. I'm assuming he's saying the decimal point continues to exert its influence and impact on numbers. "Superimposed harmonics trinary dwell setting determining" all describe the impact upon all numbers. Then he writes about the Primal Point of Unity at the center of the decimal point.
edit on 01/22/11 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Rational numbers are numbers which can be written in form p/q where p and q are integers. Integers are just any numbers out of these:

... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ...

So 2 is a rational number because 2/1 is in the form p/q. So is 513/3. So is 1/4 which is another way to write 0.25. Any number which can be written as a fraction is a rational number, and numbers with decimals which terminate or repeat in a sequential pattern can be written as a fraction.

Even I don't understand what the hell he's saying, and I study math! It sounds like woo fu to me.
edit on 22-1-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Also that quote is plain wrong. Integers, for example, don't stem from the decimal point. Has he never heard of number theory?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Americanist
Sure is... Spun density which accounts for the platonic solids.


I'm not sure what this means.

Does it have any relation to density functional theory (DFT)?


From a perspective of programming consider a single software title spawning multiple vector based objects morphed into shape via a platform of singularities.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Think of a fraction as a fractal... It's a layer or level embedded in an infinite scale of rational numbers. Fact is, we don't need to view fractions or decimals as anything other than whole numbers.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Fact is, we don't need to view fractions or decimals as anything other than whole numbers.


I remember in the Dale Pond video him saying something about decimals and Satan.
It was music to my ears.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Haven't studied fractals yet, but it sounds like a whole load of BS to me. And irrational numbers can never be viewed as whole numbers based on what I know. You'd have to disregard the order axioms to make such a claim.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Again, I invite people to review his endorsements as well as search google video/ youtube for the hundreds upon hundreds of working models. For you to claim BS with no engineering background is equivalent of being a comedian with no jokes.

Personally, I call that a "comodian" as in flushing it down the toilet.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


So, if I have no engineering background, and I call it BS, then he, having no mathematical background...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


He's self-taught and an inventor.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I'm pretty much self taught in math too, and it's obvious to me he's just throwing in fancy words to confuse laymen and sell snake oil. Nothing will come of this vortex-based mathematics, mark my words. There are special patterns for every number not just nine, and number theorists have explored them. But they never claimed it was a magic thing. Did you even do a background check on this fellow? He's just a numerologist in disguise.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Its an electrical engineering term:


The dwell angle in contact breaker systems determines the time allowed for current to flow through the primary winding and establish the necessary magnetic field. In electronic ignition systems the equivalent process is referred to as the primary circuit 'charging time'.read more here.


The decimal he is referring to is his alchemical-ish concept of god in a central 'point' of dimensions - very similar to Haramein etc. It is the emergent grainy quantum aether, the ZPE, source of spin and motion, etc.

Rodin is mapping the inherent quantum or geometry, while Haramein is focused more on the dynamic itself.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



There are special patterns for every number not just nine, and number theorists have explored them.


Yes, he does it for other numbers also. 9 seems to be his focus point because of the factoring deal.

Where he differs from numerologists, is that he isn't just being mystical about it. He is applying it to build technology and establish the idea from an engineering standpoint.

I can't emphasize enough for everybody to not look at Rodin alone. Look up Searl and the Law of the Squares, cymatics, Kepler and Pythagoras, other occultists and alchemists, Haramein, etc.

It isn't like Rodin is just a lone nut, because there are many others that bring context and depth to what he is talking about.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

#9.....................................
and the square root of 9 is 3.
think trinity.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Beebs you are a wealth of information! Thanks.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The number thing is a funny trick but I don't see any significance in it. I tried the same trick in other bases and it seems that it turns out that in any base the "magic" number is the last digit:

base 9:

1x8=8
2x8=17 -> 1+7=8
3x8=26 -> 2+6=8
4x8=35 -> 3+5=8

base 8 (octal):

1x7=7
2x7=16 -> 1+6=7
3x7=25 -> 2+5=7
4x7=34 -> 3+4=7

base 16 (hex):

1xF=F
2xF=1E -> 1+E=F
3xF=2D -> 2+D=F
4xF=3C -> 3+C=F

base 2 (binary):

1x1=1
2x1=10 -> 1+0 = 1
3x1=11 -> 1+1 = 10 -> 1+0=1
4x1=100 -> 1+0+0=1


I didn't go any further so I may be wrong, but it seems to be valid for any base. So what exactly is the significance of the decimal number system except for the fact we humans picked (probably because we have 10 fingers)?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


You left out the part about endorsements...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Thanks, I suspected as much


The other guy (not rodin) even admitted it's numerology and called it quantum numerology.
These guy are probably right where they belong... but since this is a conspiracy board:
I find it very sinister that individuals in high positions of corporations affiliate themselves with these people. The conclusions they speak of were already drawn from real mathematics. (Reality isn't only described by numbers, but even is numbers, get sprott.physics.wisc.edu... )
Normally I don't have a problem with any form of quackery but this gets on my nerves. In my more paranoid moments I will even go as far and ask myself if these people are somewhat sponsored by the powers that be to undermine the scientific understanding of society.

But no matter what you say: Until proven otherwise real mathematics will not become obsolete and will probably drive scientific development till we have an answer to Smale's last problem.

PS: If any of these problems is solved using the methods advocated ITT I'll withdraw my conclusion.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Obsolete huh? Just like the standard theory... What you recognize as mathematics is man-made. Same as the monetary system and most everything else you subscribe too. If you're leaning towards the TPTB, keep tabs on the banking syndicate.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join