Is Vortex Based Math the Key to the 21st century and salvation?

As many of you are surely aware; many scientists are claiming that we are nearing (if not already there) to the unified field theory. I have been researching this myself and surely it all seems fascinating but everywhere I go regarding the topic fails to mention something which I find to be the most incredible discovery which I think any human could have discovered in relation to . Perhaps I am wrong but its implications are truly amazing and as far as I have dug; this theory is the real deal.

I am actually fairly surprised I have not seem more information on Vortex math in ATS so I am hoping this thread will spread, expand and overall share information on it.

Anyway, lets get to the meat of this topic and watch this video to make you more acquainted with Vortex Math:
www.youtube.com...

There are other videos on youtube by the man himself, Marko Rodin so entering that name in should give you plenty of more information if you are still new to the topic.

Ugh, hate you. Now I have to spend the next few days reading up on Vortex Math.

(nice find)

reply to post by krashx6


The entire 44 pt series takes about 3 hours. Watch it twice around a week apart. The math is simple... 1-9. As I'm sure most of you already know each and every galaxy is a black hole. The speed and size of a galaxy is determined by the size of its black hole.

Everything we experience is a product of a vortex.

Null point of Earth's magnetic field
Hurricanes
Tornadoes
Shells
Ear Drums
Galaxies
Heart Muscle
Blood Traveling through Blood vessels
Cellular Support Structures
DNA
etc.,
etc...

Visit my page in your spare time. Click on the Celtic Cross/ Fingerprint.

reply to post by krashx6


Haha thanks! I hope you find it interesting. Let me know what you think.

Here are some more links for you to check out too:

This one is really long...
www.youtube.com...

Here is the founders website which has some great documentation too.
markorodin.com...

Something I find very interesting the model for this math system actually looks like the Free Masons logo...

Coincidence?

reply to post by s7ryk3r


When I googled "Marko Rodin," all the hits had the word "fraud" in them. Is there a place where one can read about "vortex math?" I have no patience with YouTube videos. I process math better in a written format. Or should I just assume the word "fraud" comes up for good reason?

reply to post by DJW001


Hmm thats interesting. I suggest visiting his website (the second link on my second post) if you do not like videos.

He has had his work peer reviewed by many people, even had some high endorsements. It seems he even has nothing to hide so I urge you to just research and test the math yourself since it seems anyone these days is quick to dismiss anything out of mainstream and label it fraud. I am curious of your findings.

Here is his site again:
markorodin.com...

Enjoy!

Never heard about Vortex Math , so thank You for bringing this to my attention , now I need some time to go over it an see if I get out any smarter The fact that it has been peer reviewed and talked over on TED gives it credibility in my opinion so even more reasons to at least get acquainted with the theory

That speech was not the greatest I have seen so if somebody wants some more info below is the link to the main site for vortex math

markorodin.com...

Originally posted by Thill
Never heard about Vortex Math , so thank You for bringing this to my attention , now I need some time to go over it an see if I get out any smarter

The fact that it has been peer reviewed and talked over on TED gives it credibility in my opinion so even more reasons to at least get acquainted with the theory

That speech was not the greatest I have seen so if somebody wants some more info below is the link to the main site for vortex math

markorodin.com...

edit on 4/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

Where was it peer reviewed and what was the result of the peer review? Was it accepted for publication?

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Thill
Never heard about Vortex Math , so thank You for bringing this to my attention , now I need some time to go over it an see if I get out any smarter

The fact that it has been peer reviewed and talked over on TED gives it credibility in my opinion so even more reasons to at least get acquainted with the theory

That speech was not the greatest I have seen so if somebody wants some more info below is the link to the main site for vortex math

markorodin.com...

edit on 4/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/11/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)

Where was it peer reviewed and what was the result of the peer review? Was it accepted for publication?

I sense a problem with people... Look off to the right under endorsements. Easy to find.

Oh.. oh dear

Ok, so I checked out his "publications". First up:

Vortex Based Mathematics: Basis for the ExtraOrdinary Rodin Coil Published in ExtraOrdinary Science & Technology - Jan/Feb/Mar 2010 by Marko Rodin, Creator and Inventor

The only info I could find on this conference was on "alternative science" (read: psuedoscience) websites.

So then I check out this

Rodin & Volk: The Rodin Number Map and Rodin Coil by Marko Rodin and Greg Volk

I downloaded the paper and it was published in the Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. It's a real conference, however I could find no credible information on it other than people dismissing it as psuedo-scienceon on science forums. Fishy.

Then I checked out this:

Rodin Aerodynamics

It is quite possibly the most laughable "paper" I have ever read. Any paper that opens with "God is always at the centre of everything" raises alarm bells Anyway, it's a hodge podge of random graphics and just outright nonsense.

Ever the glutton for punishment, I checked out this:

"The Quantum Mechanic State of DNA Sequencing" by Marko Rodin Published in the proceedings of the International Bio-Technology Expo (IBEX), the largest genetic engineering conference in the world.

For supposedly "the largest genetic engineering conference in the world", I could find no information on it. Nothing. I could, however, find Ibex International Biotechnology Experts, but, surprise surprise, nothing on "The Quantum Mechanic State of DNA Sequencing", other than on his website (and the usual psuedoscience sites, David Icke etc.)

Anyway, I got bored at that point. In summary: absolute nonsense!

reply to post by john_bmth


let`s suppose* michio kaku (or any other heavy weight academical name) said this is utter bs without taking the decency to watch 3 or 4 minutes into those vids, or the ted speech. would you scrap this theory as well?

*this is just to tease you out of your own dogmas, cause this mathematical model has no need for peer review; for
it`s nothing more than a very elegant projection of algebrical properties -- much along the lines of divisibility criteria. though, it can increase in complexity -- fractaly.

i have just finished the 16 vids and even though the speaker is kinda lost he is able to convey the 'sheer' (^^) beauty of this model

reply to post by s7ryk3r


I'll be polite. Mathematicians have been playing parlor games like his "Fingerprint of God" for centuries. They have seldom proven to be useful, or they would quickly have gone from being parlor games to applied mathematics. His claims about "vortex coils" and so forth appear to be nonsense at best, a deliberate scam at worst.

Originally posted by maoklein
reply to post by john_bmth

 

let`s suppose* michio kaku (or any other heavy weight academical name) said this is utter bs without taking the decency to watch 3 or 4 minutes into those vids, or the ted speech. would you scrap this theory as well?

Theory? As in scientific theory? As in scientific theory that has developed from a hypothesis and has been validated through the gathering of facts and repeat observation? Yes. Theory as in "get any old junk published in conferences/journals that have absolutely no credibility"? No.

*this is just to tease you out of your own dogmas, cause this mathematical model has no need for peer review;

Yes it does. Are you a mathematician? No? Then what credentials do you have to asses whether or not this is bunkum or not? Or shall we leave it to the experts?

for
it`s nothing more than a very elegant projection of algebrical properties -- much along the lines of divisibility criteria. though, it can increase in complexity -- fractaly.

i have just finished the 16 vids and even though the speaker is kinda lost he is able to convey the 'sheer' (^^) beauty of this model

That's cute. So a random stranger on the internet has watched a bunch of mumbo jumbo vids and gets a fuzzy feeling from it. Is this what you consider to be the rigours of the peer review process?

reply to post by DJW001


i have no idea if they will be able to squeeze out of it some free energy device, world hunger mitigator or brassiere size increaser for my girlfriend. nonetheless the elementary composition and arguments for the model are quite nice. at least they`re worth of a look.

reply to post by john_bmth


hm, if you will lecture me on epistemology i`d advise you to assess the theory itself before you google for authority corroborations on that particular model. after you have taken that first look, then, i`d say, would be perfect to compare your own notes to the other great minds if they have ever said anything about it. even if its to validate your first impressions: hokum.

which brings me to this: if you are a mathematician, please enlighten us for why is this such a pile of bs. as i am not one, i perceived the model as a very elegant way to demonstrate and project some elementary algebrical properties (i`m sure there may be other similar ones, but as you can guess i`m not aware of them), and what impressed me the most was how well rounded the basics of this stuff is -- and i just filter out the proselytism. i can agree that their claims for this might be far fetched, but i`m not taking that into account.

Originally posted by maoklein
reply to post by john_bmth

 

hm, if you will lecture me on epistemology i`d advise you to assess the theory itself before you google for authority corroborations on that particular model. after you have taken that first look, then, i`d say, would be perfect to compare your own notes to the other great minds if they have ever said anything about it. even if its to validate your first impressions: hokum.

which brings me to this: if you are a mathematician, please enlighten us for why is this such a pile of bs. as i am not one, i perceived the model as a very elegant way to demonstrate and project some elementary algebrical properties (i`m sure there may be other similar ones, but as you can guess i`m not aware of them), and what impressed me the most was how well rounded the basics of this stuff is -- and i just filter out the proselytism. i can agree that their claims for this might be far fetched, but i`m not taking that into account.

edit on 4/11/2010 by maoklein because: (no reason given)

Simple. Read his "papers". Check his "credentials". If that doesn't set the alarm bells off then you will quite literally wolf any old nonsense down that seems to run contrary to mainstream opinion. After all, if you were open minded you would do some background checks on the source of such information. Clearly, you haven't.

"God is always at the centre of everything"

To be more PC... The Sum of All Things Zero.

reply to post by john_bmth


Make yourself useful...
Control of Natural Forces

Spherical waves...


Q: What is the vehicle for wave function? A: The torus.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Make yourself useful...

Ok. From The General Science Journal's website:

The purpose of this segment is to provide a resource for the informal display of papers without the restrictions (formatting, abstracts, references,) normally applied to a full research paper. This allows free expression of ideas without formal proofs, etc

Submisssions on a variety of scientific subjects and in many languages identifies the major purpose of the site; an opportunity for public presentation of theories, etc. without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient. Judgement by the few runs counter to the spirit of scientific exploration. The internet provides a potential world of criticism and support. Authors who make their theories known in this manner will probably find both.

So it's a non-peer reviewed journal that does not require the author to back up their assertions with valid citations or even a formal proof. Bunkum.