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: 70
39
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
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.


How do you know with certainty what does not exist?


I assume you can appreciate the irony in these two sentences.


A bit less ironic when taken time involved in thread into account



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.


Toroidal electromagnetic mechanics is an area that is still not very well explored.


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?


Because they were too busy arguing over it?
anyway, you can keep bringing this it up, but i still dont see test data. When rodin made the mistake of marketing his "discoveries" as he did, he did the entire concept a dis-service for the very reason you and others exhibit. In science, we shouldnt assume we know (which would invalidate practicing science in the first place), so we test despite personal bias. No one has scientifically tested something, so why should anyone? i figure i must be misunderstanding you.


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.


Well, as i said, i dont have much time to invest into the thread, and ive put forward my viewpoint, so ill wrap it up. Be sure to remember this conversation




posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Be sure to remember this conversation
I will – it's quite amazing. I never saw anyone spend so much time insisting that they can't be bothered and they don't know what they're talking about but their opinion must be heard.

Do you speak Tamil? If not, please also be sure your opinions are also heard in discussion forums on the subtle wordplay of notable Tamil poets. I'm sure you'll be remembered there too. Tell them that you'd read them aloud in regional costume if you could be arsed, but you don't have the time. Tell them what you think the different letters sound like. If anyone tells you you're wrong, tell them to be more open-minded. Make sure they know how important your opinions are.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by sinohptik

Be sure to remember this conversation
I will – it's quite amazing. I never saw anyone spend so much time insisting that they can't be bothered and they don't know what they're talking about but their opinion must be heard.

Do you speak Tamil? If not, please also be sure your opinions are also heard in discussion forums on the subtle wordplay of notable Tamil poets.


You beat me to it... I was going to suggest a subtle influence of regional dialects on the poetry of Du Fu, and that some village idiot w/o any knowledge of Chinese would go to Chinese fora and try to lecture them on how these verses need to be properly read.

But I like your Tamil suggestion even better



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Truly fascinating and worth a read. It will take a while to digest but he's definitely on to something. Check it out.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
Toroidal electromagnetic mechanics is an area that is still not very well explored.


That is probably because it does not exist. You seem to be suggesting that it is somewhat explored. References?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Why are you spending so much time "subtly" berating me? i understand you think im an idiot, but why put so much effort into it instead of just calling me an idiot and moving on?
...i like you too boba
We just communicate in different ways


Anyway, my friend, i never said my opinions were important. Nor did i mean to infer that you would remember me, but that you should remember the concepts you have entirely dismissed along with (or because of) rodin's context. Just because some cultures think shooting stars are travelling spirits, does not mean shooting stars are the content of some humans imagination. Everyone approaches the same universe through their own individual context. The concepts of the universe are there for all to see and explore as they will, and i think everyone has a context for the "big questions" and life in general. Sometimes these will be based in culture, religion, science, and even seemingly "random" knowledge. However, i feel there are deep insights to be had from all contexts of all walks of life. Some have explored it more, and yet others seem to have innate skills and knowledge, but the thing we all have in common is how very limited we are compared to what Is. We are also incredibly limited we are as far as actually comprehending these things around us by anything more than individual facets (if that). There is value in exploring electromagnetic toroidal mechanics (individual of rodins context) and i am confident that time will show that, likely within the next couple of years if enough research is put into it. edit: these would be the study of the different iterations between different wrapping structure of a toroidal coil and its effects on the magnetic field as well as the electrical current. Further study will allow us to better understand not only the relationship between electricity and magnetics, but how to manipulate these magnetic fields to get consistent usable results.

i also feel there is value in learning how others see the universe, regardless of how they come at it. Some of my own biggest breakthroughs were domino effects of learning about someone elses perspective on the universe, and certainly not always in a solely scientific based process. But, as always (because it couldnt be any other way), i only speak for myself.

Thank you for the talk

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



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Why are you spending so much time "subtly" berating me? i understand you think im an idiot, but why put so much effort into it instead of just calling me an idiot and moving on?


I think Bob did exactly that. Kudos to Bob.


There is value in exploring electromagnetic toroidal mechanics


There is no such thing as "electromagnetic toroidal mechanics", Rodin or not. If you decide to hijack the dictionary, that's deplorable. Nowhere in Rodin's discource I see reference to actual mechanics, or even to electromagnetic phenomena. There is a sudoku puzzle. Period.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


See? You have discarded it before you even knew what it was.

Oh well, i will leave you all to it! all the best in your ventures. thanks for the data



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


See? You have discarded it before you even knew what it was


Who DOES know what it is? Do you?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Bobathon
 

i understand you think im an idiot, but why put so much effort into it instead of just calling me an idiot and moving on?
...i like you too boba
We just communicate in different ways
If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't try to communicate with you


I thought we had rather a good chat. I'd prefer you to see the mistakes you're making, but hey. I like it anyway.


i also feel there is value in learning how others see the universe, regardless of how they come at it. Some of my own biggest breakthroughs were domino effects of learning about someone elses perspective on the universe, and certainly not always in a solely scientific based process.
Indeed. Most of what I understand has come from having my ideas thoroughly questioned and being encouraged to see things from different perspectives. And – of course, most important of all – being encouraged to let go of ways of seeing or thinking that don't work.

And how do we come to know something doesn't work and to accept something new? By repeatedly trying to make it work, and eventually trying something else and experiencing the thrill of something we didn't think was possible. I've done a vast amount of that. As have several others here.

And sometimes there really are utterly convincing reasons against an idea being true, and no reasons that make any sense at all in favour of it. There are no reasons in favour of anything of Rodin's, only vague waffle and unjustifiable claims. And I thought the reasoning I gave here against anything of Rodin's having any substance at all were pretty watertight, logical, specific and inescapable.

But you keep on at it regardless, that's cool. If any of it somehow turns out to be right (despite the fact of it all being very clearly wrong), you and all the other fans of his populist imaginary new age pseudoscience can all be heroes. That's fine by me.

No, I don't think you're an idiot. But I think it's fair to say that your gullibility to nice stories may rather exceed your awareness.
edit on 23-4-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
 

If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't try to communicate with you


Or at the very least you would use more pictures



Indeed. Most of what I understand has come from having my ideas thoroughly questioned and being encouraged to see things from different perspectives. And – of course, most important of all – being encouraged to let go of ways of seeing or thinking that don't work.


Which will be continually a problem as limited beings. Kind of makes it fun, really
There is also always more to know about what one already knows. The only constant is change, even if its only depth of understanding of an already held concept. That was the initial idea of why i posted, to give a clear opportunity to cooperatively explore, research, and educate on something which the participants are obviously interested enough in to spend the time posting and reading in a thread this long. i feel that type of interaction, time, and effort would be much more productive at actually bringing in data and research, and would require the same amount of time. A new way of thinking that might be more beneficial to everyone as a whole? Only problem is that it requires testing...


But you keep on at it regardless, that's cool. If any of it somehow turns out to be right (despite the fact of it all being very clearly wrong), you and all the other fans of his populist imaginary new age pseudoscience can all be heroes. That's fine by me.


i dont know, i thought i have been pretty clear that i dont necessarily agree with his context... But the concept of properly exploring and testing the electromagnetic interaction of different types of coils and wrappings might allow deeper understanding of the force as a whole (instead of trying to minimize magnetism). Overall, i think it is good for actual testing to happen in place of argument, but this is obviously an idealistic idea. The pattern he discovered is also interesting, though likely not nearly as significant as he thinks.

i am not so sure "gullible" is the right word for thinking that learning and researching about magnetic field manipulation will lead to usable, applicable ideas. But hey, call it what you will, only time will tell


i thought our talk wasnt so bad either.

 


Buddhasystem, yes, it is a term i made up. When i communicate, i try to put words together to match the concept i am trying to relay. If one is trapped in the context, it is hard to understand the underlying concept (and almost impossible if one doesnt even try). Apologies for coming up with a way to describe electromagnetic behavior in various toroidal wraps and iterations without peer review
i described what i was trying to say up above in an edit when i saw your question.

Its all good guys, all the best to ya



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

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sinohptik
Toroidal electromagnetic mechanics is an area that is still not very well explored.


That is probably because it does not exist. You seem to be suggesting that it is somewhat explored. References?



Reference Tesla and a key to the Universe. If your waking hours could remotely compare to his dream states, I'd lend you an ear. Unfortunately, you're hardly adequate to compete with his ilk.


So what do you imagine, is on the menu tonight? You're almost down to peanut butter jelly time...



Where you at? Now there you go!!

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



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist


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


What you're really pointing at is 1. frequency and 2. amplitude.
Do you just like to see me proclaim "dictionary abuse"? OK then, I will:
That's dictionary abuse! I wasn't talking about frequency and amplitude. Words have meanings. Please stop abusing those meanings.


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


Research and Development Viktor Schauberger
I didn't modify your tags but you're supposed to use EX tags for external sources like that and QUOTE tags are for ATS posters.

Did you see this?

4. 1948-1950: Conceived and developed copper-based farming tools, which increased the crops, as opposed to the iron/steel-based gardening/farming tools which disrupt the energies of the soil.

How do you go about measuring the amount of soil energy disrupted with the two different types of farming tools?
And he's dead already, how is he going to invent something from beyond the grave? Oh wait that's the next link you posted...


OS:Klimator:Main_Page - Viktor Schauberger Klimator OpenSource Project,
Yeah, well, Dale pond is still trying to get the Keely motor working 129 years later, so I suspect people will still be trying to get this thing to work in 129 years...that doesn't mean they will succeed, it just means they will waste 129 years that could have been used working on something more productive.


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.
They are looking for investors, but I used to work for a company that made jet engine components, among other things, and I learned that while the concept of jet engine operation is pretty simple, the actual engineering for maximum efficiency is not that simple. Moreover the claimed efficiency improvement is from swirling the fuel and air together to improve combustion, but I hate to break the news to them that they aren't the first to think of that:

Low-Emission GEnx Jet Engine

The combustor is the section of an engine where fuel is burned. GE has been maturing TAPS combustor technologies for almost a decade, and rig tests this year on the GEnx TAPS combustor have demonstrated very promising results. Here's how the TAPS combustor works:

The key to TAPS is how air and fuel are pre-mixed before they are burned in the combustor. Air from the high-pressure compressor is directed into the combustor through two high-energy swirlers adjacent to the fuel nozzles. This swirl creates a more homogeneous and leaner mix of fuel and air, which burns at lower temperatures than in previous jet engine designs.


You missed another company on that page that actually got some funding and built a product:
pesn.com...
And since this is a thread on vortex mathematics at least I finally get to post a real vortex from that company, look around 1 minute in the video:

I don't see anywhere to hook up a dynamometer to the machine in that video, like they show hooked up to the prototype in the peswiki link back in 2005. I looked for the third party test results they talked about, but either it's still being tested, or they don't want to publicize the results.


Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
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.
Of course there are secret or black programs, and in some decades we may learn what today's programs are just as we've learned about past secret programs after some decades have passed.

Some of it we can almost guess, like improved stealth and even invisibility technology like in the movie "Stealth". But I suspect there are some projects I might not be able to guess. For example, I never would have guessed the WWII project that planned to send millions of bats carrying candles into Japan to burn down cities.



Originally posted by Americanist
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
Thanks for posting that. About a year ago I was trying to see if there was any evidence of changing radioactive decay rates and I didn't find anything....that's the sort of article I was looking for. I'm not sure what it has to do with vortex mathematics, but since I posted a video of a vortex, at least my whole post isn't off-topic.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


First off, what do you think temperature is? Let's take heat for example...

Secondly, I've witnessed a vortex air pressure system pulverize all sorts of material. The invention I'm referring to rolled up to my place of business on its trailer. At the time, the inventor had already nailed down a dozen contracts with mining companies. His next addition was to add frequency filters at the tail end of the machine to sort various elements.

Never too late to get started. This fellow was 72 when we crossed paths... Great guy all around!

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



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

Originally posted by Americanist
First off, what do you think temperature is? Let's take heat for example...
Why do you insist on dictionary abuse? What's wrong with the dictionary definitions? In this case the definitions in a thermodynamics textbook are probably more accurate than a standard dictionary, but in neither case do they define it as frequency.

Temperature and heat are two different things once you leave the realm of standard atmospheric temperature and pressure.

In some parts of space you can freeze to death in a temperature of a million degrees because there isn't enough heat to keep you warm. Hows that for a paradox?

Back to the topic of vortexes (or vortices, whichever you prefer), yes they can be very destructive. About 300+ tornadoes touched down in the eastern US about a week ago, one only a short distance from my parents house and it was very destructive indeed. Man has been known to imitate nature so what you say isn't surprising.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
First off, what do you think temperature is? Let's take heat for example...
Why do you insist on dictionary abuse? What's wrong with the dictionary definitions? In this case the definitions in a thermodynamics textbook are probably more accurate than a standard dictionary, but in neither case do they define it as frequency.

Temperature and heat are two different things once you leave the realm of standard atmospheric temperature and pressure.

In some parts of space you can freeze to death in a temperature of a million degrees because there isn't enough heat to keep you warm. Hows that for a paradox?

Back to the topic of vortexes (or vortices, whichever you prefer), yes they can be very destructive. About 300+ tornadoes touched down in the eastern US about a week ago, one only a short distance from my parents house and it was very destructive indeed. Man has been known to imitate nature so what you say isn't surprising.


You've seen a bullseye right? All you're doing is drawing concentric circles around my point... Temperature and time are relative. Time is cyclic on myriad scales, and what do cycles imply? I'll give you a hint. Starts with an F.

Don't F-lunk now. Besides, the thermodynamics textbook might have whacked out the definition of decay. In any event, there's room for debate in science. Take the heat of our Sun from its surface to corona coupled with the article I referenced earlier.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 
Temperature and time are relative? omfg. Good luck with this one, Arb



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

i am not so sure "gullible" is the right word for thinking that learning and researching about magnetic field manipulation will lead to usable, applicable ideas. But hey, call it what you will, only time will tell

If you're referring to anything of Rodin's then it is the right word. And... well, you're not thnking of learning and researching about it at all, are you. Since everything of his can already be seen to be blatantly false, I'm not sure what you're waiting for time to tell you. You can sit there and hope for someone else to magically reveal the answer that you want it to be, or you can make the effort to find out what it really is. It's up to you.


Its all good
If only that were true.
edit on 24-4-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I propose a theory of secantial thermodynamics, going from macro to micro with the vortex of dark energy. According to the theory heat is actually pressure, and the vortices are donut shaped. Remember e=mc^2 people. I think the gnomes can be called particles. Think about how the universe forms, like a flux of toruses dipped in scrumptious ether sauce. Can you prove me wrong? Of course not because you don't understand what I'm talking about. You're all talk. Think of Tesla, singularities and supernovas you illiterate fools. Don't you see how it all connects? Rodin is a misunderstood genius.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
This youtuber actually walks the walk and shows us all up:

rwgresearch.com...


The YouTuber's name is Russ Gries, and he's affiliated with a non-profit organization called
open-source-energy.org.

I've enjoyed watching his numerous videos showing his work with the Rodin coil. Here's one of them:




new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join