"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by squandered
If you are discomforted by people who put concepts together loosely, why do you bait them?

I don't know what you mean "bait them"? I'm trying to understand if they are on to something, or making up BS, so that's why I ask for clarification.

It could be either one until I see the response to my request for clarification. But once I see the response, then it's not hard to tell which it is.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by squandered
If you are discomforted by people who put concepts together loosely, why do you bait them?

I don't know what you mean "bait them"? I'm trying to understand if they are on to something, or making up BS, so that's why I ask for clarification.

It could be either one until I see the response to my request for clarification. But once I see the response, then it's not hard to tell which it is.

I was being lazy and generalizing anti-Rodin alarmists with you because you are pretty consistent. "Bait" is not the right word. That said, I think you are siding with people who think like you because you aren't getting the clarification that you want.

On the brighter side, those who follow intuition aren't susceptible to BS, like you think. That is, if others are like me, we think it is all BS (ever was, ever will be), only it's the knock-offs that are BS.

It's like watching a comedy show and waiting for the punch-line whereupon you all say, I knew that was coming. Trying to supplant your own bias into what is already whole is impossible, so apart from changing paradigms learning new things is just a matter of awareness expanding - at or around the same rate as the space around you...

I digress

Am I alone in KNOWING that the facts that yield before my eyes are always opening up to greater truths and as such my interpretations are not the discovery. The more you observe, the less you see your own bias being of any importance at all.

P.S. theoretical talk takes fluid thinking.

reply to post by squandered

Dear Squandered, you write this:

Am I alone in KNOWING that the facts that yield before my eyes are always opening up to greater truths and as such my interpretations are not the discovery. The more you observe, the less you see your own bias being of any importance at all.

So the more you observe, the less biased you become. Your interpretations are not discovery.These are your very words!
But you do in fact know, that rodin is right. Amazing!
You do know about the many word soups you throw into the conversation. They are off course not discovery but interpretations.
Perhaps you should observe, and interpret more.
Perhaps you should use your knowledge to understand symbology and science better, and so you will be able to better observe and understand.
Perhaps you should actually examine real world discoveries, such as the world is in fact not flat, and ponder on that.
Now don't get upset. I am just quoting you.

Perhaps you should take Crowleys words as advice. I have quoted him before, so may as well stick with him:

“I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.”

You have a lot of faith in rodin and your word soup, perhaps you should try a little doubt?

Or maybe this quote better suites you?

“Intolerance is evidence of impotence.”

Now I would argue, that you are perhaps impotent, based on Crowleys insights into nature, but I digress.
You should embrace us simpletons and explain your word soup, as we are all dying to have free energy, not doing this, and pleading spirituality and name calling when asked to provide facts, evidence and descriptions is surely intolerance?
Also, writing incredibly long responses with meaningless dribble, and then getting a reply based on parts that actually make sense, is not wrong, not misrepresentation, but in fact very helpful to your spiritual development, I would propose.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You take out of context portions so that you can fabricate an argument to make others look like they are the ones not complying to honourable form.

What exactly did I "take out of context"? You mentioned vacuum domain and how energy thrusts field etc.
That's enough context for clarifying the concepts you invented.

The only reason you keep muddling the waters because in essence you said zero, zelch, nada, but managed to use a hundred of pseudo-science terms.

yes in context of the post I said that was my own intuitive understanding of what Thrust flux atom pulsar is in context of i.e. a Vacuum Domain and a torus field (you say you dont know what a torus field is - common man try harder, you take us for fools assuming each new member who posts in the thread is unaware that you know what the core ideas penitent to the thread are) I never said I used those words myself merely that they are words that I'm familiar with the meaning of which I intuitively felt parrallel Rodins terminology, thereby enabling me to know what he means... You then attack my statements because I didn't use the same words as Rodin to articulate the exact same concept...

You complain on one hand that you don't get Rodin's terminology and on the other complain when it is explained in another laymen way via allegorical means...

make up your mind

Now show me the pseuo-science terms I used??? if you can provide a decent reason why you think its pseudo science then I might consider replying... And leave out the Vacuum Domain term I did not say that was my own... as I stated above...Anyway Vacuum Domains are actually real things as Shredmetal pointed out In another post somewhere

reply to post by BBalazs


Typical misrepresentation. I don't know why you bother. Is this your reaction to people throwing about concepts in a way that you can't comprehend? It seems a little unnecessary.

Originally posted by squandered
Am I alone in KNOWING that the facts that yield before my eyes are always opening up to greater truths and as such my interpretations are not the discovery. The more you observe, the less you see your own bias being of any importance at all.

P.S. theoretical talk takes fluid thinking.

Indeed. As John Maynard Keynes said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

A year ago I would have said that we have no evidence of matter traveling faster than light and that it would seem pretty unlikely we would find such a thing. Now we have a new piece of evidence, which though not independently confirmed, suggests neutrinos may be going a hair faster than light.

We all have to be fluid enough in our thinking when we make new observations like this to accommodate the new observations in our world view (though in this case some confirmation would be nice, since we also have evidence from SN1987A that neutrinos didn't travel faster than light).

We all need to do as Keynes said and adjust our thinking based on the facts we have in hand and when we get new facts, if we confirm they're right, we need to adapt. However I see a lot of requests in this thread to adjust my thinking with no facts. That's a lot harder to do and I'm not sure it makes sense to do it. Why? Even if I wanted to, here's the problem:

Three different people (or more) can come up to me without facts and tell me to change my way of thinking three different ways. If they are not all in agreement with each other, and often they even conflict with each other, how could I do this even if I wanted to? I can't simultaneously adopt two new opposing contradictory positions. This is where facts and evidence come in handy...they help me decide which of the three people suggesting a new world view might actually be right. See my point?

Originally posted by Spiratio

Actually Mary,

Since this is your thread I think I should ask before doing this. Do you mind if I link the first post of mine (regarding the esoteric reduction etc and implosive space) in my signature with a reference . . .

I would call it ATS's thread, not mine, but I don't believe that would be against the terms and conditions.

reply to post by BBalazs

So the more you observe, the less biased you become. Your interpretations are not discovery.These are your very words! But you do in fact know, that rodin is right. Amazing! You do know about the many word soups you throw into the conversation. They are off course not discovery but interpretations. Perhaps you should observe, and interpret more. Perhaps you should use your knowledge to understand symbology and science better, and so you will be able to better observe and understand. Perhaps you should actually examine real world discoveries, such as the world is in fact not flat, and ponder on that. Now don't get upset. I am just quoting you. Perhaps you should take Crowleys words as advice. I have quoted him before, so may as well stick with him:

My observations are nothing special. It is the topic that is special but me, more or less, I stay the same.

The idea that I am alone in this, is absurd. It doesn't matter if your field of vision is small.

The thing is,
"in fact not flat, and ponder on that"
Why was that aimed at me?

This thread attracts strange visitors.
They have come here extracting knowledge.
You are a few sharp minds swirling
.. to publicly deface.

Thank you for the links - mostly taken without a thanks.
If I'm being flippant it's because I'm being flippant.
ATM it's just like lifting debris off a map!!

Please only post this whole comment

Copyright 2012 Squandered :-)
No portion of this comment can be used for propaganda.
My comments are given only for reasonable discussion.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

However I see a lot of requests in this thread to adjust my thinking with no facts. That's a lot harder to do and I'm not sure it makes sense to do it. Why? Even if I wanted to, here's the problem:

Sorry if I offended you before Arbitrageur. You bring a lot of good sense to this thread.

ATS You are free to delete any of my comments as required.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

how could I do this even if I wanted to? I can't simultaneously adopt two new opposing contradictory positions. This is where facts and evidence come in handy...they help me decide which of the three people suggesting a new world view might actually be right. See my point?

I get it.
"which of the three people suggesting a new world view might actually be right"
None of the above

.. that's business

Originally posted by squandered
Sorry if I offended you before Arbitrageur. You bring a lot of good sense to this thread.

Thanks. I'm not easily offended, having what's called "thick skin". And I'm actually more open minded than a lot of people give me credit for.

Originally posted by squandered
I get it.
"which of the three people suggesting a new world view might actually be right"
None of the above

.. that's business

Possibly, if none of the three have any proof. However if one person has proof and the other two don't, I'm going to at least look at the proof to see if it holds up to scrutiny. If it does, that might be the person and evidence to change my/our world view. But in 176 pages, I have yet to see proof of Rodin's claims.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Thanks I guess were on the same page with views on ownership etc. as well

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Marko Rodin too seems to have this talent, of stringing words together so I can't understand them, such as when he says that the number 9 is the particle known as dark matter. I know what a number is, and I know what a particle is, but I can't quite grasp how a number is a particle.

do you expect us to believe that you're so stupid you don't know what a symbol is?
you are mocking this thread and Rodin in order to pick apart a theory and examine all of it's (mostly unimportant) parts until you get lost in the details and the whole is discernible.

"i can't quite grasp how a number is a particle"

this is obviously a low-blow to all intelligence on this thread, you're mocking the very idea of a symbol, and physics/math in general. i'm pretty positive they teach you about "variables" in 6th grade.

the number nine has the same relationship to dark matter particle as the letter "C"s relationship to the Speed Of Light.

do you also believe that the letter C is the speed of light? by the same logic you MUST

if you're going to resort to such infantile tactics of dealing with the "rodin crowd" then we all must assume that you have no capability of understand physics at all, let alone Rodin's descriptions.

I posted this on page 2:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I found this page on Randy Powell's website: "The Rodin/Powell Solution: A New Approach to Vortex Based Mathematics by Randy Powell - Sunday, September 26, 2010"

I don’t believe anyone posted about its contents.

I looked it up because I’m wondering what is the extent of the difficultly of engineering a Rodin coil. In other words, is this within the abilities and resources of the open-source R&D community.

I’m struck by this passage:

Over unity? Free Energy? Not yet for such devices will certainly require funding and the use of automatic technology to create precisely honed ABHA Torus structures capable of harnessing the true power of toroidal pinch. Most likely such devices will not be made of wire but will use other continuous media such as plasma gases which have the ability to expand and contract or even rapid prototyping lasers.

What are the various types of "automatic technology"? How expensive does it get?

Also, I had not remembered the statement that the devices would not be made of wire. To my knowledge, that's all the open-source community is working with.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
do you expect us to believe that you're so stupid you don't know what a symbol is?

do you also believe that the letter C is the speed of light? by the same logic you MUST

I'm familiar with c being a commonly used symbol for the speed of light. And I can tell you the properties of the speed of light, it's 299,792,458 m/s.

What are the properties of the particle with "symbol" 9?

Is it massless, or does it have a mass, and if so what is the mass?

I can get over the unusual use of a number as a symbol if you can tell me something about what the symbol represents, but as you can see from the following table, generally numbers are not used as symbols for particles.

Here's what we know about some other particles for comparison:

www.gizmodo.com.au...

The three values represented in each particle’s box are, from top to bottom, its mass in electron volts, its charge and its spin.

What is the mass, charge, and spin of the dark matter particle which according to you has symbol 9, and where is the evidence for this?

Edit to add:
This is an exact quote from Rodin's article which he has removed from his website:

The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter.

He says the number nine is the particle. He doesn't say anything about any symbol.

In contrast, look at how c is noted in reference to the speed of light:

en.wikipedia.org...

The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant

There is at least some effort made to indicate that c is a symbol, in the phrase "usually denoted by".

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
"i can't quite grasp how a number is a particle"

this is obviously a low-blow to all intelligence on this thread, you're mocking the very idea of a symbol, and physics/math in general. i'm pretty positive they teach you about "variables" in 6th grade.

All of the grades including the 6th, seem to have been lost on you, as is richly demonstrated in what you are saying next:

the number nine has the same relationship to dark matter particle as the letter "C"s relationship to the Speed Of Light.

Clueless as usual...

"c" is a symbol representing a constant value. It was in fact chosen completely arbitrarily. Could have been "L" for Lux in Latin. If number nine represents a particle, why does it even need to be "9"? Maybe it's "23", or "117".

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Edit to add:
This is an exact quote from Rodin's article which he has removed from his website:

The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter.

I was just focusing on the word "particle" in Rodin's work as described by Randy Powell at TEDxCharlotte 2010. I wrote in my notes that Powell talks about the 6 - 9 - 3 part of Rodin's circle as the flux field of electromagnetism, and that it has "aetheron energy" at the center of it. Then he proceeds to call this the God particle. He says that if you combine it with Rodin's coil you get a perfect vortex.

I believe that what is intended with the language is to say that instead of a fundamental particle in the usual sense of "particle" being the secret of creation, the secret of creation is, instead, this "aetheron energy" that they're substituting for the usual meaning of "particle."

Or something along those lines.

And, of course the number 9 is not to be interpreted as literally a particle in the sense of a minute, discrete, and separate, substance. It's a location in a dynamic.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
as the flux field of electromagnetism

Mary,

what's the "flux field of electromagnetism"?