It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 98
39
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM

Jason specializes in magnetism and has done extensive research.

I look forward to posting more of his work. I'm certain there will be much more to come, and that he will contribute widely to making this a better world.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:49 PM
Not sure what there up to didn't watch the whole 4 hour movie since i've looked into the coils not to long back. its decent they broke it down to base 9 math. Some of the comments made no sence with regaurds to the take of numbers higher than 9 equal 9. If 9 is the highest number if anything is higher it would be 9. If i have nine seats in a bus and 14 people come in and take a seat how many seats are taken it won't be 14 it would be 9. Anyone else notice the symetry with da vinci's Vitruvian Man from 1485 and there pyramid pic

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by warsight
Not sure what there up to didn't watch the whole 4 hour movie since i've looked into the coils not to long back. its decent they broke it down to base 9 math. Some of the comments made no sence with regaurds to the take of numbers higher than 9 equal 9. If 9 is the highest number if anything is higher it would be 9. If i have nine seats in a bus and 14 people come in and take a seat how many seats are taken it won't be 14 it would be 9.
There is no 9 in base 9, so it's not base 9. The highest symbol used in base 9, is 8, just like the highest symbol used in base 8, is 7:

www4.ncsu.edu...

Introducing Base Eight
So what if we had eight fingers, or for some other reason, we decided to start over every eighth number instead of every tenth? Then we would have "base eight" (also known as "octal") counting. In this system, there are eight symbols to work with:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

We don't need an 8 or a 9 at all: out of just those eight symbols above, we are going to represent every possible number!
Rodin says that all multiples of 9 equal 9, so for example 18 equals 9.

Where did you get 14 from? he made no claims about 14 being equal to 9.

And to use your bus example, lets say the bus has 18 seats. Since 9 and 18 are equal, Rodin is saying that whether all the seats are filled or have the seats are filled, it's equal. That makes no sense.

So the fact you don't get what Rodin is saying is excusable, since it's so bizarre as to be incomprehensible.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Jason specializes in magnetism and has done extensive research.

Then he must have done a crack job of concealing his wits and research skills, because in the video he looks like a disturbed person without a clue. Nothing he said makes sense, and he resorts to pseudo-science talk of the lowest grade to make the ignorami *SNIP* believe that he knows some esoteric stuff other people don't. Alphabet soup. Centripetal spin. Spin as negative energy. All of that choice cr@p.

I look forward to posting more of his work. I'm certain there will be much more to come, and that he will contribute widely to making this a better world.

Uhu. *SNIP*

edit on 17-10-2011 by alien because: ...needless personal commentary removed...

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM

Leave it up to you with confusing the addition of whole numbers and schematics.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:15 PM

Bold talk for being part of a group burning countless millions on hot smelly air and the subsequent skid marks. Firstly, you're chasing something that doesn't have mass. Secondly, why don't you be productive, and come up with easier solutions for transmuting metals. Perhaps you'll be of use after all.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:09 PM

I recall you made the same claim about a base 9 system on page 1:

Originally posted by Americanist
If you'd made it even a fraction of the way through, you'd understand it's a base 9 number system.

So have you figured out yet that it's not base 9?

Here's a clue, how do you write the number 9 in base 9?

Do you even know?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Nothing he said makes sense, and he resorts to pseudo-science talk of the lowest grade to make the ignorami (you, Mary) believe that he knows some esoteric stuff other people don't. Alphabet soup. Centripetal spin. Spin as negative energy. All of that choice cr@p.
Science can answer questions related to science, but it doesn't have answers to things like spirituality, nor does if claim to, and people are looking for answers to things outside of science. I can't fault them for looking, as I am too. I suspect we all are.

There is a lot I don't know, but I can tell you this much with 100% certainty, the only answers people will get by watching videos like that one by Jason, are WRONG answers.

Carl Sagan devoted some of his attention to addressing issues of spirituality, and here is a quote from hos book:

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

People who want to correlate science and spirituality would become much more enlightened by reading Sagan's book that quote came from, than by watching videos by Jason Verbelli.

And this thread could use a candle in the dark, since pretty much everything that emanates from Rodin is about as dark as it gets in the context of enlightenment.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:41 PM

I corrected this terminology a few posts later... Mod 9. Continuing...

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:55 PM

Science isn't a new concept. The correlation between lessons of yesteryear and today boost our fact and logic. If you come up with a new and original idea on your own, by all means... Take your place in the history books.

Since you're both unable and unwilling now, you're more than welcome to bow out. You've become decidedly unproductive.

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:21 AM
I've been reading about Brian O'Leary's work recently, and a passage I just read made me smile regarding the conflict between traditional, mainstream, authority figures in the world of science and technology and innovators such as Rodin. From the page "Radical Innovation, Relocalization and Sustainability - Brian O’Leary, February 2011 on brianoleary.info:

One of the most vexing and urgent question of our time is, how can we achieve sustainabiity? That was the question twenty-seven of us souls mulled over for a week during the Phoenix Gathering here at Montesueños in June 2008 and re-localization was surely a central theme throughout the meeting and afterwards. But would re-localization in and of itself be enough to solve the sustainability problem? I don't think so. Surely innovation must also play a part in creating the new world.

The technology piece is more elusive to many of us because of a collective lack of awareness of transcendent possibilities that also threaten the status quo, especially the "free" energy technologies that have shown proofs-of-concept but have been violently suppressed ever since the time of Nikola Tesla. But many of us are skeptical of even its possibility because we don't have it now and we don't understand the complex process of research and development of bold new technologies, which in this case has not at all been supported. I'm certain we could have it through further development if we so choose, in spite of all the scientific naysaying. My essay The Turquoise Revolution posted on my website addresses the nagging question of why most scientists, environmentalists and progressives deny the possibility of a future with breakthrough clean energy and water technologies.

This is quite analogous to the development of aviation. The Wrights had been flying for about two years, with thousands witnessing this, yet the journalist covering the first flights was fired and Scientific American wrote an editorial saying aviation was a fraud.

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My essay The Turquoise Revolution posted on my website addresses the nagging question of why most scientists, environmentalists and progressives deny the possibility of a future with breakthrough clean energy and water technologies.

I have never seen anyone denying this. In fact, it is possible with our current state of technology, it only requires quite some investments which no one is currently willing or able to make. The bottleneck is politics and economy, not our currently accepted understanding of science

The only nay saying I see is against the unproven physics that contradict our current understanding of physics, together with the completely baseless claims such as "cure for every decease" and "unlimited free energy for everyone".

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 07:25 AM

PLB,

Please edit your post to use the correct tags for outside quote as opposed to quoting a member.

Thank you.

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:49 AM
For those who are researching whether or not free energy is, indeed, suppressed by the powers that be, I recommend this page from the website ahealedplanet.net. It contains both a transcript and a free audio file of a 1 hour 22 minute interview of Wade Frazier and Brian O'Leary in 2009: "My Project Camelot Interview".

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Americanist

Bold talk for being part of a group burning countless millions on hot smelly air and the subsequent skid marks.

On you part, bold talk for someone who doesn't see the benefits the science has brought to the masses, which include the ignorami. I'm about half a mile away now from the place the first ever Web server was started a while ago. Years later, the ubiquitous and pervasive connectivity allows absolutely everyone, educated or otherwise, to enrich themselves by acquiring knowledge on the Web, or vice versa, engage in pointless display of hubris and lack of gratitude towards science. Or post absolutely nonsensical videos on YouTube, which claim there is a connection between a spherical magnet and "ancient teachings". If you want to be fair, through away your laptop and don't fly on any airline, because you know, they use GPS, which wouldn't work without formulas from General Relativity. And if your doctor prescribes an MRI, please decline is as well, because you know, it's all just "hot smelly air". And skid marks.

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:31 PM

And all of what you mentioned, was established well in advance of CERN. The exact point I was making...

For those of you preferring not to waste time stating the obvious:

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Americanist

And all of what you mentioned, was established well in advance of CERN. The exact point I was making...

The Web was invented at CERN. I thought you knew that, but hey. That first box which was the Web server No.1 was sitting in the gallery next to cafeteria for years, then they moved it to ITD. And I was referring to fundamental research that gave you all these innumerable goodies for which you are not grateful. In its time, some other dufus was complaining about futility of quantum mechanics and how it was "hot air".

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
I corrected this terminology a few posts later... Mod 9. Continuing...
That's not even close to what happened.

On page 1 of this thread, after you said it was base 9, I pointed out that it wasn't.

Then you said something about a programming language.

Then you said reduction and compression are no different than Rodin's 9=18 claim

After some discussion about reduction, apparently I convinced you it wasn't really reduction, by explaining what reduction is. Apparently you accepted my explanation because you didn't try to defend your reduction claim, but then you reiterated the compression claim and dropped the reduction claim. I couldn't find any definition of compression that matched your claim.

Then, when pressed for clarification, you said what you were really thinking about was information theory and entropy encoding.

Then we had some discussion about how entropy encoding applies, or more specifically how it DOESN"T apply to Rodin's 9=18 example

Apparently you finally accepted that because I didn't see you dispute my debunking of that. I also went through the first 10 pages which I think is roughly 200 posts, and still didn't see any mention of mod 9 (did i miss it?), so you certainly didn't mention it "a few posts later".

But since that's the latest straw you're grasping at, let's examine that claim.

It's your best try so far, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The first thing that shoots it down is terminology.

What mod 9 refers to is Modular arithmetic
en.wikipedia.org...

We can say that 9 and 18 are congruent modulo 9, or congruent mod 9.

But mathematics is a precise language, and Rodin clearly says "equal", not "congruent". So that's the first failure.

Even if you try to argue that he meant congruent but said equal, there are some severe problems with that.

The first problem is, that means Rodin is an extremely poor mathematician to confuse concepts that have such different meanings. And it's not just one typo, he goes on about it.
The second problem is, Rodin himself debunks the modulo explanation with his "clarification" that the reason 9=18 is because 18 is composed of 1 and 8 and when you add them, you get 9. Modulo aritmetic does NOT work that way.

Let's take the numbers 7 and 14 in modulo 7 and apply the same logic. We can correctly say that 7 and 14 are congruent in mod 7.

BUT, when you Separate 14 into 1 and 4, and you add 1 and 4, you don't get 7. So that shows that the modulo arithmetic concept doesn't hold up. It doesn't allow you to split up 14 into 1 and 4 and add them together, nor does it allow you to split up 18 into a 1 and an 8 and add those together, as Rodin has done.

So,
it's NOT Base 9
it's NOT a programming language
it's NOT reduction
it's NOT compression
it's NOT information theory
it's NOT entropy encoding

And finally,
it's NOT Mod 9 either

Originally posted by Americanist
You've become decidedly unproductive.
I know it's hard to remember what happened all the way back to the beginning of the thread, but it does appear that you're on your 7th different explanation for the same thing now, after I've proven the earlier claims false.

Hopefully you'll agree the mod 9 claim is also inconsistent with Rodin's explanation.

So it seems to me like I've been giving you a free education whether you want to admit it or not, and comments like that one make me feel unappreciated.

But I do have to give you credit where credit is due. You didn't dogmatically stick to the same false claim over and over after I proved the claims false, like some people might. You were creative enough to come up with new claims. At least you're thinking creatively, and I value creativity in the designers I work with so creativity does have value.

However, one thing I've noted about mathematics is, it does tend to place some limits on creativity, meaning if you get too creative, there are a lot more ways to get the wrong answer, than there are to get the right answer.
edit on 18-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So,
it's NOT Base 9
it's NOT a programming language
it's NOT reduction
it's NOT compression
it's NOT information theory
it's NOT entropy encoding

And finally,
it's NOT Mod 9 either

It's also NOT a lot of other things that Rodin claims it is. Number 9 is not a particle, it's not dark matter and if you put it into a sudoku puzzle, it does not magically create a black hole out of that sudoku, even if you wrap the sudoku around a Dunkin Donut.

When the proponent of the theory is so delusional as it is apparent with Rodin, it's sad to see that people spend time analyzing the rest of his mumbo-jumbo, 9=18 and how it creates passages in space time (no explanation of that, but according to Rodin it does).

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:26 PM

I read about a quarter of the way down. You don't speak for me. The only change I issued was base 9/ mod 9. You've confused me with someone else... Basically you're confused in general or lost over the course of many months.

I'd pull from this thread (actual quotes) addressing numerous posters in addition to you. All along I've asserted compression, reduction, and folding. I've also termed this system using language similar to programming in order to appease an egocentricity that is the science/ physics you've displayed.

Rodin himself debunks the modulo explanation with his "clarification" that the reason 9=18 is because 18 is composed of 1 and 8 and when you add them, you get 9. Modulo aritmetic does NOT work that way.

You conveniently left out 3 other symbols in this outfit. You picked up on addition of course, but you'll find a total of 4 streams including multiplication, division, and subtraction. Moreover, it's a mod 9 system that goes one step further. Meaning the digits also add together to equal the same.
edit on 18-10-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:46 PM

There's a nest of baby birds you should attend to shortly... They might not eat regurgitated donuts, so it's a good thing the remainder of your material is waste.

how it creates passages in space time

Follow the path of energy... There's a defined passage it takes.
edit on 18-10-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

new topics

39