"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Bobathon


You're replying to my post about Powell's two sets of videos with quotes that don't come from those two sets of videos.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

You're replying to my post about Powell's two sets of videos with quotes that don't come from those two sets of videos.

I'm talking about the video (the only video) that you posted on this thread. If you'd like to retract that post, please feel free.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Are you saying the substance of his claims is entirely unimportant? You have no interest whatsoever in whether or not there's any truth in anything he says?

reply to post by Bobathon


What I'm saying is be on topic when you post and don't misrepresent things.

Perhaps you'd like to actually watch the Powell videos. Powell is more articulate than Rodin.

Originally posted by beebs
each person should be judged as if every idea they have is their own graphomaniacal liability isolated from rational reality.

Bobathon didn't cite a list of people, he cited a list of claims:

Originally posted by Bobathon

 

Here's a list of just some of the idiotic claims he makes in that talk:

1. "the most advanced mathematics known to mankind"
   
2. "what we have is the grand unified field theory"
   
3. "with it you can create inexhaustible free energy, end all diseases, produce unlimited food, travel anywhere in the universe, build the ultimate supercomputer, artificial intelligence and [make] obsolete all existing technology"
   
4. "[numbers] are actually points or locations that fold out into a 3D shape defining space and time literally"
   
5. "a feat that's baffled countless scientists and mathematicians"
   
6. "these shapes form pathways for any matter and motion"
   
7. "everything is a coil"......

So regardless of whether the claim cones from Russell, or Keely , or Rodin, why don't we discuss the claims instead of the people? Bobathon keeps asking Rodin believers to support any of Rodin's claims with real-world evidence. Instead, you talk about how other people have the same beliefs, which prompts me to re-ask the question I asked you earlier:

If 60 million other Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth instead of vice versa, does that make it any more true than if it's claimed by one person? What difference does it make if 60 million other people share a false belief? (as long as they are only being hired as ditch diggers and not NASA scientists charged with calculating the trajectory of an interplanetary satellite, it probably doesn't matter how many people share a false belief). In fact I'd say those 60 million people can show me more evidence for their beliefs than Rodin, because they can point to the sun rising in the East which proves it's revolving around the Earth. Then we can discuss the merits of that claim of real world evidence for such a belief. But I haven't seen even that much real world evidence for any of the Rodin claims.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the Advanced series, Powell talks about spires that spiral over the surface of the coil.

He says that he has changed the model and he calls his a quantized numerical taurus, and that if he is correct, the technology needs to be reconfigured. He says that if he is not correct, that at least Vortex Math needs to be re-defined

Please explain what possible difference it would make to anyone anywhere whether he is correct or incorrect?

The analogy to me is if I claim I might be wrong about the invisible leprechauns in my garden, they might actually be invisible elves instead.

Since there's no proof in the real world for either my invisible leprechauns or my invisible elves, just as there's no proof in the real world for the original vortex math nor a re-defined vortex math as mentioned by Powell, who would care if either fantasy claim was revised to a different fantasy claim? It's not like there's any proof for either one, right?

reply to post by Bobathon


Huh??

Do you need to be spoon-fed?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Huh??

Do you need to be spoon-fed?

No, but I prefer not to be lied to. And you are posting lies.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Not your own lies, but other people's lies. Which you have no interest in looking into. You just post and post this crap. It's lies, Mary.

Arbitrageur and Bobathon,

1. Let's establish that the Rodin coil cannot be discussed in terms of whether it works or not because the mainstream is not interested in it, since it will result in the loss of profits for the people who control the mainstream. This is what happened to Tesla. J.P. Morgan withdrew financing as soon as he found out what Tesla was going to provide for the world.
   
2. That leaves the math. Let's move forward. Watch all the Russell videos, and then let's discuss them without sarcasm and name-calling.
   

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Millions of people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and then some guy named Copernicus came around and said, "Actually, it just looks like that... but it is really the Earth revolving around the sun."

So, it still looks the same. The new model just predicts observations better, and explains the previous observations in a more logical and comprehensive way.

This is why the scientific institution is inherently falsifiable, not verifiable. Experiments are Repeatable, yes... but many in this thread are asking for verification of Rodin's ideas with reality... quite absurd considering that Rodin's interpretation of reality is different than yours - a point that has persistently evaded substantial recognition in this entire discussion. You can falsify his model by immersing yourself in all of his particulars, and hours of video and writings... or you can repeat experiments with the Rodin coil. You cannot ask us to verify a model, because anything we say will be denied by your subjective verification process.

To me, the model composed of elements by Bohm, Keely, Pond, Russell, Rodin, Wolff, Tesla, Leedskalnin, etc. is verified in a slightly better epistemological sense than QCD or QED, as it coherently unifies sound, light, spacetime, gravity, EM, biological order, consciousness, etc.

I am sure that both are extremely valuable models, they just need to meet each other and have a discussion.

Can you see why science is not verifiable, but instead falsifiable?

Rodin should devise an experiment that could falsify his theory, but alas he is an aging Baha'i mystic, and has found his answer. The invention of a falsifiable experiment is up to others now.

I guess you should start with an aim to prove that there is a literal fundamental building block of nature, a separable piece upon which the whole is built. That is consistent with your presuppositions.

However, the other party has rejected such propositions - and is in search of how to explain nature holistically, functionally, inseparably, and Gestalt.

And quite frankly, I think its a bit ridiculous to ask how his ideas correlate with observable nature. He is merely condensing general knowledge of observable nature into what he thinks is the simplest and most comprehensive model to explain the observable.

You use your abstract mathematics to statistically predict, he uses his imagination to visualize the system before your abstract mathematics are observed in statistics.

Your math still works to show HOW, it is probably just a tad incomplete, and lacks the general explanatory power of WHY.

We must choose the more elegant, simple, and comprehensive theory that explains all of our current observations and anomalous behavior, and use it for outlining further experiments and theories.

Then, we repeat the process, looking for new observations and phenomena to further our understanding in the context of the new paradigm.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Watch all the Russell videos, and then let's discuss them without sarcasm and name-calling.

The mathematics has absolutely no substance and the videos are full of lies. Do you want me to just not say these things?

I've shown you the lies. You cannot expect anyone to discuss this as if it is a serious subject unless you can show some substance. It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The new model just predicts observations better, and explains the previous observations in a more logical and comprehensive way.

That is bollocks. Absolute bollocks.

Can you see why science is not verifiable, but instead falsifiable?

Of course. But this is not science. It's numerological bollocks. Why ask people to speak of it as if it is science, or mathematics? It shares nothing with either of these disciplines.

And quite frankly, I think its a bit ridiculous to ask how his ideas correlate with observable nature.

Yes, exactly Beebs. It is is ridiculous to ask this. Because his ideas have no connection with reality at all.

Originally posted by Bobathon
The mathematics has absolutely no substance and the videos are full of lies. Do you want me to just not say these things?

You probably should stop posting on the thread, since you're not interested in the subject matter. You've posted that it's all crap. That should suffice. People know what you think. Repeating it over and over is not contributing to the thread.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You probably should stop posting on the thread, since you're not interested in the subject matter. You've posted that it's all crap. That should suffice. People know what you think. Repeating it over and over is not contributing to the thread.

I am interested in the truth about the subject matter.

You are confusing "contributing to the thread" with "agreeing with what you think". If you want to be able to keep on posting other people's self-promotion, without taking any interest in whether or not it is true, and for nobody to disagree or even ask you to clarify anything, then you shouldn't be on a public forum.

reply to post by Bobathon


You haven't even viewed the Powell videos, have you?

If you view the videos and then make a comment in a respectful manner, I will discuss as much as I'm capable of doing. I'm learning this math as I continue to view additional videos and read from other sources.

reply to post by Bobathon

That is bollocks. Absolute bollocks.

Ok, why?

Of course. But this is not science. It's numerological bollocks. Why ask people to speak of it as if it is science, or mathematics? It shares nothing with either of these disciplines.

On the contrary... you must consider the history of science and mathematics. (and don't give me that "yeah, but that was history not now!" crap)

Yes, exactly Beebs. It is is ridiculous to ask this. Because his ideas have no connection with reality at all.

Please elaborate on your radical standpoint. His ideas clearly have a connection with reality, as that is what he is basing them on...

Vortex's(Vertices?) exist in nature. Thats enough to merit the idea of there being a form of mathematics based on that phenomenon.

I guess one has to notice a vortex in nature before you can conceive that there is physics involved with such a thing.

Looking at math is not the same as looking at nature.

On the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible. But on one point, curiously enough, there was failure: it proved impossible to associate with these Schrodinger waves definite motions of the mass points - and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction. The difficulty appeared insurmountable until it was overcome by Born in a way as simple as it was unexpected. The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1940)

Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (QM), differs fundamentally from both Newton's mechanics, and Maxwell's e-m field. For the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. (Albert Einstein, 1931)
I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1934)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

If you view the videos and then make a comment in a respectful manner, I will discuss as much as I'm capable of doing. I'm learning this math as I continue to view additional videos and read from other sources.

I've seen several. But I'm asking you a direct question.

I made a list of Powell's claims in the one that you posted, and you must answer for these if you want anything he says to be taken seriously.

Decent people do not stand up in front of people and lie to them.

"marko's antenna designs are protecting the four corners of the United States" - lie

"they're found to be the most sensitive antennas ever created" - lie

"Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine stated that this math was so advanced it would never be understood in Marko's lifetime unless he cloned himself" - lie

"with it you can create inexhaustible free energy, end all diseases, produce unlimited food, travel anywhere in the universe, build the ultimate supercomputer, artificial intelligence and [make] obsolete all existing technology ... are such things possible? frankly, yes, they are, and my team is ready to develop them at any time" - lie

"it has been peer reviewed by some of the best names in science" - lie

Answer for them.

Originally posted by beebs

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by beebs

The new model just predicts observations better, and explains the previous observations in a more logical and comprehensive way.

That is bollocks. Absolute bollocks.

Ok, why?

You're saying it predicts observations better, when it predicts nothing at all, and you're saying it explains observations logically and comprehensively when it doesn't. That's why.

his ideas have no connection with reality at all.

Please elaborate on your radical standpoint. His ideas clearly have a connection with reality, as that is what he is basing them on...

Vortex's(Vertices?) exist in nature. Thats enough to merit the idea of there being a form of mathematics based on that phenomenon.

Yes, of course they exist in nature. But Rodin hasn't created a form of mathematics based on vortices, he's just put some numbers in a pattern and used the word vortex randomly. It has nothing to do with nature.

reply to post by beebs
I say that it has nothing to do with nature, because I know that you, or anyone, cannot provide a single example of Rodin's 'mathematics' predicting or deriving or generating any solution to any physical situation involving physical vortices. There are none.

I say that it is not mathematics because there is no kind of rigorous logic involved at all. Mathematics relies absolutely on rigorous logic, presented explicitly and openly. There is none.

reply to post by Bobathon


You don't know these things are lies.

You're just stating as if you were God or something that they're lies.

You're being ridiculous.