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

Originally posted by john_bmth

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.

edit on 4-11-2010 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Your point exactly? There was no formal proof of black holes for several decades. After the year 2000 it was found every galaxy has one at their heart. Science is experimentation, imagination, assertion, and intuition. We only find proof when advancements catch up. Mull over that sort of "nonsense."

reply to post by Americanist


My point? Stop posting up bunkum from "journal publications" as some form of validation when the journals in question are of absolutely NO CREDIBILITY

Okay, regardless on your opinions of his credentials he did create something called the Rodin Coil which has expressed an impressive amount of efficiency. I find it interesting the key to Rodin's model is actually 3,6, and 9. If any of you do not know the significance of these numbers; let me just quote from Tesla after the 1899 earthquakes: “If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 & 9; then you would have a key to the universe.” What I am getting at is this model seems to be similar to what Tesla researched and I am a strong believer that if Tesla's work was not destroyed then we would be one incredibly advanced society today.

I would be interested if we could have some real mathematicians put these models to test so that we could see how practical this could be used. Perhaps Rodin has grasped something which he does not full understand himself, the Rodin Coil does have a very unique efficiency to it and similar ideas have been presented by many other researchers. I would be very interested in how a magnetic super-fluid would react inside one of these Rodin Coils. Alien Scientist (a fellow ATSer) has presented similar theories behind the supposed technology behind UFO propulsion and goes as far to include NASA gravity probes which give credence to his theory as well. I believe he is studying to be a physicist too? Anyway this video explains his similar views (The related content comes around 2:30):
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Americanist

 

My point? Stop posting up bunkum from "journal publications" as some form of validation when the journals in general ARE OF ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY

edit on 4-11-2010 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Stick to romance novels. Or better yet... Popular Mechanics. Black holes began as theory. Where was the validation then? A perfect example. Hate to say it, but you're lacking quite a bit of "cred" by your responses.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Americanist

 

My point? Stop posting up bunkum from "journal publications" as some form of validation when the journals in general ARE OF ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY

edit on 4-11-2010 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Stick to romance novels. Or better yet... Popular Mechanics. Black holes began as theory. Where was the validation then? A perfect example. Hate to say it, but you're lacking quite a bit of "cred" by your responses.

"Began as theory"? Are you saying they began as a scientific theory (i.e. already proved)? Or are you getting your terminology confused?

Anyway, so what "cred" am I lacking by pointing out BOGUS credentials and BOGUS "journal" publications? Explain that to me, please

reply to post by john_bmth


Are you implying as part of scientific theory black holes do not exist within your line of questioning? Let's get it out there on the table shall we...

we have to spend more time on this math...it's physics too
the free energy school has a proponent stating that the electrons have a mini-gyroscope set and he was getting more efficient power by allowing for that. marko's toroid is addressing that possibly.
this is string theory or unified field science....cool

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Are you implying as part of scientific theory black holes do not exist within your line of questioning? Let's get it out there on the table shall we...

What the hell has that got to do with anything? We're talking about "votex math" and that other piece of bunkum you posted. I don't know about black holes (and I'm willing to bet you don't either given your scientific illiteracy) and nor do I care about them. They have nothing to do with this thread or the "paper" you posted.

Back on topic: now, why has the guy a) faked his endorsements and b) faked his "publications"? Why is that, do you reckon? If he's a "mathematician", why hasn't he submitted his work to credible journals and had his work assessed by experts in his field? After all, maths isn't subjective. Could it be because... oh I don't know, he's a crank??

Stop ducking and answer these questions. Likewise, that "paper" you posted was in a "journal" that a) did not go through any sort of review process, b) did not need anything in the way citations and c) did not require the author to back up their claims. In short, anyone can submit anything to these "journals" and they'll get "printed". It's about as credible as an unsourced website.


This is a SCIENCE forum. Thus, the topics must be concerned with SCIENCE. It's not called the "Conjecture and Fantasy" forum it's called the "Science and Technology" forum. Leave this garbage out of it!

It amazes me how people are so quick to dismiss the status quo yet pick up and run with any old rubbish that has absolutely zero credibility. You think it scientific to provide fake endorsements and credentials? You think it's scientific to tout work published in "journals" that absolutely zero assessment of the work published? Why isn't he being assessed by his peers? Oh that's right, because he's full of it But of course, it's much easier to dismiss mainstream thinking as some sort of conspiracy and then go on to fake your credentials The irony is people like you think you're open-minded, but you're not. You're polarity responders. Dismiss mainstream thinking and wolf down any old rubbish without even a cursory check to see if the source is credible. But hey, it's "anti-establishment" so it must be true!

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Are you implying as part of scientific theory black holes do not exist within your line of questioning? Let's get it out there on the table shall we...

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

We're talking about "votex math" and that other piece of bunkum you posted. I don't know about black holes (and I'm willing to bet you don't either given your scientific illiteracy) and nor do I care about them. They have nothing to do with this thread or the "paper" you posted.

Back on topic: now, why has the guy a) faked his endorsements and b) faked his "publications"? Why is that, do you reckon? If he's a "mathematician", why hasn't he submitted his work to credible journals and had his work assessed by experts in his field? After all, maths isn't subjective. Could it be because... oh I don't know, he's a crank??

Stop ducking and answer these questions. Likewise, that "paper" you posted was in a "journal" that a) did not go through any sort of review process, b) did not need anything in the way citations and c) did not require the author to back up their claims. In short, anyone can submit anything to these "journals" and they'll get "printed". It's about as credible as an unsourced website.


This is a SCIENCE forum. Thus, the topics must be concerned with SCIENCE. It's not called the "Conjecture and Fantasy" forum it's called the "Science and Technology" forum. Leave this garbage out of it!

It amazes me how people are so quick to dismiss the status quo yet pick up and run with any old rubbish that has absolutely zero credibility. You think it scientific to provide fake endorsements and credentials? You think it's scientific to tout work published in "journals" that absolutely zero assessment of the work published? Why isn't he being assessed by his peers? Oh that's right, because he's full of it

But of course, it's much easier to dismiss mainstream thinking as some sort of conspiracy and then go on to fake your credentials

The irony is people like you think you're open-minded, but you're not. You're polarity responders. Dismiss mainstream thinking and wolf down any old rubbish without even a cursory check to see if the source is credible. But hey, it's "anti-establishment" so it must be true!

Scientific theory begins as postulation. You dodge a straight forward question with an insult, and who comes off as rubbish? I've absorbed a considerable amount on black holes. I understand the process by which science tracked black holes. I also gather how embedded in each and every galaxy is a black hole dictating size and speed. I don't armchair quarterback. I would certainly endorse Marko Rodin myself. I've had numerous phone conversations with the gentleman. What have you done exactly? Where is your contribution to science?

Polarity responders? Let me guess... You watched Season 9 of Family Guy with Rush Limbaugh, and now you feel you're able to psycho analyze as well as debunk. Mainstream science (including that of Stephen Hawking - up until recent past) is nothing more than guess work. Dark matter, phantom massless particles, virtual particles, dark energy, dark flow, etc., etc. If you feel more comfortable hiding behind a dark cloud... Go for it. Only until recently has Mr. Hawking come to more of a "bubble" approach to our Universe. I still find this entertaining because I emailed the guy several times going on the 3 year mark now. Someone within his organization read my blog almost immediately. I've tracked over 5k hits in total.

I've emailed MIT as well. I mentioned nearly verbatim the observer result inside the double slit experiment is due to electromagnetism. What they use as the observer fires off an interference pattern. This was 3 years ago too. What exactly have you done? Look for mainstream to accept something before you realize its potential? How's that working for you? Other related questions... How long ago did the framework for Cold Fusion surface? Where is science finally at? I suggest you do some searching before you make a bigger fool of yourself this time around...

reply to post by Americanist


Answer my previous questions, please. If you wish to defend a fraud and then tout a "paper" in some mickey mouse journal then at least defend your position, not doge the questions.

Rodin's math is just that.. MATH.. Numerology..

You want a youtube series that will REALLY lead to the salvation of humanity, new energies, and antigravity, and has actual PHYSICS equations to back it up (and the math is actually based on reality)?

Check this one one.peswiki.com...:_Anti-Gravity_/_Cold_Fusion_Explained_In_Detail:_A_New_Era_in_Physics" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> peswiki.com...:_Anti-Gravity_/_Cold_Fusion_Explained_In_Detail:_A_New_Era_in_Physics

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Rodin's math is just that.. MATH.. Numerology..

Numerology is not math.

reply to post by john_bmth



Please explain that to Marko Rodin then LOL... The dude has some cool math concepts, which have a purpose in new models of computing, but he's really gone off the deep end.

Ask anybody who's ever met him personally.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Please explain that to Marko Rodin then LOL...

Why bother when he can just fake his credentials and publications instead? Call me a square but I think that's a pretty serious issue. If he was an academic people on here would be all over him calling him a fraud and on the payroll of TPTB/our reptilian overlords/alien Gods/Cthuhlu/other [delete as applicable]

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Americanist

 

Answer my previous questions, please. If you wish to defend a fraud and then tout a "paper" in some mickey mouse journal then at least defend your position, not doge the questions.

The next time I give you a second thought will be when I'm watching a Disney film.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Please explain that to Marko Rodin then LOL... The dude has some cool math concepts, which have a purpose in new models of computing, but he's really gone off the deep end.

Ask anybody who's ever met him personally.

Have you met him personally? He makes rounds at the Tesla conferences... Just wondering. What Marko re-discovered was the answer to the golden ratio as well as the platonic solids. The pattern provides us 3 dimensional planes of existence (1,4,7 - 2,5,8). Marko didn't create any of this... He unmasked the coding. Coding so simple even a 3 year old john_bmth could comprehend.

reply to post by Americanist


So faking credentials and publications doesn't set off any alarm bells? And what does this "Tesla conference" have to do with any of this? Does that somehow negate his previous fraud? In other circles he would be referred to as a "con artist". On here he gets hailed as a "genius".

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Americanist

 

So faking credentials and publications doesn't set off any alarm bells? And what does this "Tesla conference" have to do with any of this? Does that somehow negate his previous fraud? In other circles he would be referred to as a "con artist". On here he gets hailed as a "genius".

edit on 5-11-2010 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Alarm bells?

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.

So far you've attempted to downplayed two conferences as pseudo-science (including Tesla now?), and took a crack at God. Looks as though you've conned yourself quite a bit. When you bring something to the table as significant as A/C, utilizing radio frequency, or turning metal sheets into straight diaphragms, I'll start paying attention to your critiques (aka bitching). At least you're not illiterate. Kudos.

Originally posted by Americanist

So far you've attempted to downplayed two conferences as pseudo-science (including Tesla now?), and took a crack at God. Looks as though you've conned yourself quite a bit.

Way to completely side-step the issue So you're saying that his endorsements and publications aren't fake? And on what grounds are you basing this? Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la!" doesn't count.

When you bring something to the table as significant as A/C, utilizing radio frequency, or turning metal sheets into straight diaphragms, I'll start paying attention to your critiques (aka bitching). At least you're not illiterate. Kudos.

FYI I'm a published academic, I've been through the peer review process. I've had work accepted. I've had work rejected. I am intimately aware of the back-breaking work that goes into a well-researched paper and what is expected of authors in terms of backing up every assertion with hard facts and credible sources. The peer review process isn't perfect because after all, human beings aren't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than removing the mechanisms put in place to weed out such nonsense!

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Americanist

So far you've attempted to downplayed two conferences as pseudo-science (including Tesla now?), and took a crack at God. Looks as though you've conned yourself quite a bit.

Way to completely side-step the issue

So you're saying that his endorsements and publications aren't fake? And on what grounds are you basing this? Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la!" doesn't count.

When you bring something to the table as significant as A/C, utilizing radio frequency, or turning metal sheets into straight diaphragms, I'll start paying attention to your critiques (aka bitching). At least you're not illiterate. Kudos.

FYI I'm a published academic, I've been through the peer review process. I've had work accepted. I've had work rejected. I am intimately aware of the back-breaking work that goes into a well-researched paper and what is expected of authors in terms of backing up every assertion with hard facts and credible sources. The peer review process isn't perfect because after all, human beings aren't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than removing the mechanisms put in place to weed out such nonsense!

What realm of academics? Many more people had to jump through hoops worse than you. And I think you're somewhat confused...

Russell P. Blake
Former Senior Researcher
Microsoft Research

Dr. Hans A Neiper
Dr. Len Horowitz

Dennis Watts
Thomas Bearden

Prof. Scot C. Nelson

So you hold more credibility than these individuals? Marko's work spans the globe. I could name a whole slew of credible witnesses. What are you sitting on research wise? As I stated earlier... Science begins as a postulation. There is no denying this fact.