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: 99
39
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


God, you really have a knack for making content-free posts.


Follow the path of energy... There's a defined passage it takes.


That's deep... NOT!




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Americanist
 


God, you really have a knack for making content-free posts.


Follow the path of energy... There's a defined passage it takes.


That's deep... NOT!


Deep? No, a modest amount of observation will do. Once again you're directed to galactic formation.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


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".



Quantum scale was addressed way earlier... "Hot air" as in a range of position and velocity. What you make of it is up to you. And when I think of internet, I'm brought back to a derivative of the US Military during the 60's. That's the story circulating around here. I should've said prior to CERN being involved instead.
edit on 18-10-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Americanist
 


God, you really have a knack for making content-free posts.


Follow the path of energy... There's a defined passage it takes.


That's deep... NOT!


Trying to explain things like quantum mechanics, your wasting your time trying to, no, I take that back. No ones wastes time trying to explain what is arguably a difficult subject (QM) in the first place. Hell, I have enough trouble trying to convince people the world of quantum-meso-classical physics is even part of the same whole. Ugh.. Frustrating, but also interesting. By the way never been to CERN, dropped by Fermi Lab at Batavia Il. a few times, when they would let me in...(Usually only if followed by a guy holding a net) Hope to get to CERN, hear the cafeteria even offers organic produce. Is this true, or just a cruel rumor?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

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.
I'm confused? OK to clarify who is confused, I request some leniency from the mods in application of the quoting rules to show what was said since there is a dispute over what was said.

You're saying that none of this ever happened, and that you're not replying to me? These are direct quotes:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


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. Using the example you cited... 18 is (1 + 8) = 9.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In a base 9 number system, 9 (base 10) would be written as "10" (base 9), and 18 isn't equal to 1+8 (or 9) in either base 9 or base 10.


This is the very next post, I don't have you confused with anyone else, and you're not quoting nor replying to anyone else:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
...it's a base 9 number system. Using the example you cited... 18 is (1 + 8) = 9.
In a base 9 number system, 9 (base 10) would be written as "10" (base 9), and 18 isn't equal to 1+8 (or 9) in either base 9 or base 10.
edit on 15-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


The term is called reduction. 10 = 1... This reduction is casting out the singularity event. The base 9 number system is in essence a programming language. Call it what you will... This is the reason you have energy ending up as spun density (mass).



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist
 

Please cite a source showing that reduction can be used to show that 10=1, in base 9, base 10, or any other base. It can't.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I guess you have a problem with reduction or compression... This is no different.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
An example of reduction would be simplifying the fraction 6/10 to 3/5
Saying 10=1 is not reduction.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I used two separate terms... The latter you managed to skip over: Compression.
Are you referring tho this kind of compression?

If so please explain how that applies, and if not please clarify what kind of compression you're talking about, maybe with a link explaining it.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm leaning more towards information theory and Entropy Encoding.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
I'm leaning more towards information theory and Entropy Encoding.
Please explain how that applies.

Those examples of encoding show either a lookup table, or a formula used for encoding. Does Rodin describe an encoding method somewhere, like the examples linked to the link you provided?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The formula or table goes like this:
1,2,4,8,7,5

3,9,6,6,9,3,3,9
...
If you don't recall any of that happening you can verify it, and I still don't see "mod 9" a few posts later.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
All Rodin did was rediscover the divisibility test for 9. It's not like nobody noticed it before. If the sum of the digits is divisible by 9, the number is divisible by 9. All he's doing is repeating the test till he gets 9 again. For example 1269 is divisible be 9 because the sum of its digits is 18. 18 is also divisible by 9 because the sum of its digits is 9. I don't understand how this could lead to unlimited powah.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
I don't understand how this could lead to unlimited powah.
My father once told me a humorous story that I think is related.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, US military commanders were concerned about an attack on the continental US, but they knew the Japanese planes couldn't fly all the way to the US from Japan, so they needed to use their navy to launch an attack.

So an admiral calls in his staff and tells them his great idea, that the Japanese fleet can be immobilized by simply draining all the water out of the ocean. His staff was puzzled and replied "But sir, how are we supposed to do that?"

The admiral replied "I'm the idea guy, you can't expect me to work out every single detail can you? That's what I'm asking you to do, just figure it out!"

It seems like Marko Rodin and the Fictitious admiral in that joke have a lot in common. They think they have a great idea, but they don't have the slightest clue how to implement it. Rodin seems to be saying the exact same thing as that fictitious admiral, that it's up to others to figure out how to implement it. The cliche "easier said, than done" comes to mind.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It seems like Marko Rodin and the Fictitious admiral in that joke have a lot in common. They think they have a great idea, but they don't have the slightest clue how to implement it. Rodin seems to be saying the exact same thing as that fictitious admiral, that it's up to others to figure out how to implement it. The cliche "easier said, than done" comes to mind.


There used to be quite a lot of information on Rodin's site from endorsers and the part about the U.S. military using Rodin's technology, but you called it all a fraud, as you called all the other pioneers with similar work to Rodin's.

Here a fraud, there a fraud, everywhere a fraud, fraud - remember?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


And everything mainstream is suppressed science, amirite?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There used to be quite a lot of information on Rodin's site from endorsers and the part about the U.S. military using Rodin's technology, but you called it all a fraud, as you called all the other pioneers with similar work to Rodin's.

Here a fraud, there a fraud, everywhere a fraud, fraud - remember?
Fraud?

What I remember is accusing two of them of being dead, Salk and Nieper, which was made further suspicious by the lack of any date appearing on the documentation that was allegedly provided by the deceased endorsers. You don't have to be the world's biggest skeptic to wonder about using dead references with no dates on their documentation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by FequalsForce
. . . Salk, who is dead . . . never a physician during the entire time Rodin has been alive . . .




Salk died in 1995. What's your point?
Hans A. Nieper, another Rodin endorser, died in 1998.

If I write an endorsement from him about my flying spaghetti monster theory, and affix a likeness of his signature to it like Rodin did to his testimonial, would you believe he supported flying spaghetti monsters?

It's convenient to use dead people for undocumented assertions, because they aren't alive to dispute the claims we make.

In fact Rodin doesn't list any date at all for the communication he alleges to have received from Dr. Nieper.

markorodin.com...


But did you dispute that they were dead, or that the documentation had no dates?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I could spend my time chasing down your accusations about Rodin's endorsers, etc., but it would not be time well spent. If I had reason to suspect there is value in your accusations, I would, but I don't, so I won't.

I have better things to do with my research time.


Nope. You saw no reason to doubt Rodin so you didn't even bother to look into it.

The ex-Microsoft guy wasn't dead but he could have been just as delusional as Rodin for all I know. He had impressive credentials for a computer programmer but not for a mathematician nor an electrical engineer, so him saying something positive about Rodin was a bit like the computer geeks who knew nothing about physics saying something nice about Haramein's physics paper. How much does that really mean? Not much. The endorsements might have had some value if they were alive and if they actually knew something about the topic, but neither was the case. In any case the final arbiter is agreement with experiment and observation and there's none of that for Rodin's grandiose claims from Rodin nor his endorsers. They were pretty fluffy endorsements if you actually read them.

You said they used to be on the site, did they withdraw their endorsements? Is that why they aren't on the site anymore? Nah, that can't be it, dead people can't withdraw their endorsements, can they?
edit on 19-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The whole site has been taken down with the message that no investors are being sought.

Col Bearden is the most important endorser. You've virtually called him a fraud.

People with similar work to Rodin's that you've called a fraud are John Keely, John Searl, and Bruce DePalma.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The whole site has been taken down with the message that no investors are being sought.

Col Bearden is the most important endorser. You've virtually called him a fraud.

People with similar work to Rodin's that you've called a fraud are John Keely, John Searl, and Bruce DePalma.


I'm not going to pretend to be a physicist, but based on everything Rodin has said/claimed it doesn't seem like there's anything worth investing in.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
And when I think of internet, I'm brought back to a derivative of the US Military during the 60's.


You can be "brought back" to anything, it's just doesn't map onto technology and facts. Internet as you know it is the Web, not some transport layer or FTP. Gasoline existed long before cars were invented, same applies to TCP/IP and the Web. Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between the Web and the Internet protocol, it's not too late to learn.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
hear the cafeteria even offers organic produce. Is this true, or just a cruel rumor?


I'm just back from there 15 min ago, I didn't specifically see organic produce, it may exist on some shelf. You can always Google CERN restaurants, they offer their menu on the Web.

But the pate they have at the salad bar rocks. I break my vegetarian routine here just because of that.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The whole site has been taken down with the message that no investors are being sought.

Col Bearden is the most important endorser. You've virtually called him a fraud.

People with similar work to Rodin's that you've called a fraud are John Keely, John Searl, and Bruce DePalma


Mary, isn't it plain that John Searl is the fraudest fraud the world has ever seen? Saying that there is a magic combination of magnets that flies out from his hands and up into the stratosphere every time he builds one, so he actually can't demonstrate a thing... That really takes the cake! Anybody who believes that needs to have their head examined.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
People with similar work to Rodin's that you've called a fraud are John Keely, John Searl, and Bruce DePalma.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Neither you nor the named individuals have provided a single shred of extraordinary evidence to back up their extraordinary claims.

So I'd say you don't even need me to tell you they are frauds. The prima facie evidence is that they have failed to demonstrate anything to back up their claims. That has nothing to do with your opinion or my opinion, it's a fact which speaks for itself.

And I'll add another name who we will soon find out is fraudulent or not, the inventor of the E-Cat, Andrea Rossi. I suspect he's a fraud too but I'm not as certain of it as I am with the other names you mention. Rossi said he was going to build his power plant this month so I'm not going to make a final judgement before the end of the month.

But I'm also not going to allow him 130 years to prove his claims like you seem to be doing with John Keely, that's ridiculous. I don't see how you can possibly defend that. Tom Bearden, John Searl and Bruce Depalma have also exceeded any reasonable time frame to back up their claims. But Rossi deserves some more time so let's give him some reasonable amount of time before we become certain that he's also a fraud, or maybe he builds his power plant this month and he's the first genuine over unity guy in history? I'd love it if his power plant works so even though I don't usually like being proven wrong, this would be an exception. I'd actually LIKE to be proven wrong about Rossi.

But he's already leaked out on his website that his deadline is slipping, accompanied by some lame excuse, so it's starting to look like he might turn out like all the others you mentioned. We'll see.
edit on 19-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
And when I think of internet, I'm brought back to a derivative of the US Military during the 60's.


You can be "brought back" to anything, it's just doesn't map onto technology and facts. Internet as you know it is the Web, not some transport layer or FTP. Gasoline existed long before cars were invented, same applies to TCP/IP and the Web. Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between the Web and the Internet protocol, it's not too late to learn.



Learn? Your response may convince a layman, but I worked for an ISP inside a major hub nearly 15 years ago. My job was to connect people to the net. The web maps to US military channels which evolved into various protocols. What? You want to take credit for developing the Model T next? These had a hand crank which became the d/c starter, but here we are at another tangential argument resembling the topic of gasoline.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Neither you nor the named individuals have provided a single shred of extraordinary evidence to back up their extraordinary claims.


Utter nonsense.

You have to study the information about these people. You have to put in the time and effort. There is a voluminous record.

Enough. There is no purpose in re-hashing what's already on the thread.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
And when I think of internet, I'm brought back to a derivative of the US Military during the 60's.


You can be "brought back" to anything, it's just doesn't map onto technology and facts. Internet as you know it is the Web, not some transport layer or FTP. Gasoline existed long before cars were invented, same applies to TCP/IP and the Web. Anyhow, if you don't know the difference between the Web and the Internet protocol, it's not too late to learn.



Learn? Your response may convince a layman, but I worked for an ISP inside a major hub nearly 15 years ago. My job was to connect people to the net. The web maps to US military channels which evolved into various protocols.


You can't look up "the Web" on Wikipedia or comprehend what's said in that page, for starters. This is rich. WWW as a concept has noting to do with "military" channels, just like the concept of electric shaver has nothing to do with the US power grid.

Here, try again:
en.wikipedia.org...


Web as a "Side Effect" of the 40 years of Particle Physics Experiments. It happened many times during history of science that the most impressive results of large scale scientific efforts appeared far away from the main directions of those efforts... After the World War 2 the nuclear centers of almost all developed countries became the places with the highest concentration of talented scientists. For about four decades many of them were invited to the international CERN's Laboratories. So specific kind of the CERN's intellectual "entire culture" (as you called it) was constantly growing from one generation of the scientists and engineers to another. When the concentration of the human talents per square foot of the CERN's Labs reached the critical mass, it caused an intellectual explosion The Web – crucial point of human's history – was born... Nothing could be compared to it... We cant imagine yet the real scale of the recent shake, because there has not been so fast growing multi-dimension social-economic processes in human history..



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My claim in exact sequence... I mention base 9 (which is still true mind you) then mod 9. Mod 9 was introduced by Beebs I believe then later adopted to prevent your brain from seizing while contemplating this concept:

The reason base 9 still applies... This system stays within boundaries (1,4,7 - 2,5,8). So yes, the highest order of number is 8. The remainder symbols 3,6,9 reside as part of separate "hole-punch." A supplied wrap for said boundaries.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join