"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000

 

Let's put the math aside

There is nothing to be put aside -- a feeble attempt at numerology does not count as math. There is not a single formula or other mathematical device in that garbage theory, that either explains an existing phenomenon or predicts a new one.

and focus, instead, on the technology of energy from the vacuum and whether or not it's true, as demonstrated by equipment that may or may not work.

What do you mean "may or may not work"? It simply doesn't, there is no evidence that it ever worked at all.

Generally speaking, this is not taught in universities

Again, what's there to teach? You can't teach nonsense. Declaring "9" a sacred number is not a "teaching" r science.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is nothing to be put aside -- a feeble attempt at numerology does not count as math. There is not a single formula or other mathematical device in that garbage theory, that either explains an existing phenomenon or predicts a new one.

My understanding is that Rodin's system creates a grid that is a blueprint for how energy can be drawn from the vacuum.

What do you mean "may or may not work"? It simply doesn't, there is no evidence that it ever worked at all.

What I had said was put aside the Rodin Coil since that is not accepted by Rodin's critics and let's talk about other devices that draw energy from the vacuum.

Again, what's there to teach? You can't teach nonsense. Declaring "9" a sacred number is not a "teaching" r science.

I believe the word "sacred" within the context of the Rodin Coil should be viewed as the fact that the position the 9 has on his grid represents that spot in his blueprint from which the power emulates.

Originally posted by beebs

Don't attack Rodin the person, instead focus on the idea of Vortex Based Mathematics or Sympathetic Vibratory Physics or Wave Structure of Matter theories...

I was focusing on them. And I don't see why he shouldn't be called a gibbering idiot.

Do you have any examples of him saying anything meaningful? You know, that relates to the real world?

(Ok, maybe he's secretly intelligent, but makes a point of only talking cr@p on the internet.)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My understanding is that Rodin's system creates a grid that is a blueprint for how energy can be drawn from the vacuum.

Yes Mary, you are right. He created a grid of numbers. Similar "grids" van be found in the Sudoku pages of your local newspaper. However, he can't explain the mechanism by which the energy is supposedly drawn from vacuum. "Emanation point" or "black hole" are terms he randomly applies, but they really don't mean anything. Note that Rodin does use electromagnetic field in his toys. How that field interacts with the vacuum remains a mystery.

So again, the fact that they don't teach that stuff in schools is partly due to absence of any substance in all that.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Similar "grids" van be found in the Sudoku pages of your local newspaper.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Note that Rodin does use electromagnetic field in his toys. How that field interacts with the vacuum remains a mystery.

"Toys" is not an appropriate word, I believe, in view of this statement, for just one example, taken from his page of Contributors and Supporters:

He was also invited to present his paper, "Low Cost Propulsion Systems Based Upon the Re-evaluation of the Physics of Matter", at the Air Space America convention, the largest U.S. convention of its type. The Rodin Coil Antenna won a U.S. military design contest as the most powerful antenna with the greatest pickup over the longest distance and was awarded a government contract for incorporation into the nation´s first alert warning system.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

He was also invited to present his paper, "Low Cost Propulsion Systems Based Upon the Re-evaluation of the Physics of Matter", at the Air Space America convention, the largest U.S. convention of its type.

Well they clearly didn't think much of it, because there is no mention of this paper anywhere on the web apart from Rodin's own site, Rodin's own claims, and people parroting Rodin's own claims.

(In case you're tempted to say that that's because it's top secret, well don't. Just don't. People don't brag in public about top secret work.)

Do you have anything that could help suggest that Rodin's words are not entirely empty claims?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

"Toys" is not an appropriate word, I believe, in view of this statement, for just one example, taken from his page of Contributors and Supporters:

Actually that whole page is just littered with bull. As was already pointed out in this post on a related thread.

Taking people's claims about themselves at face value is the weakest, least reliable, most idiotic and most dangerous form of 'research'.

Especially self-deluded morons.

But generally too.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What I had said was put aside the Rodin Coil since that is not accepted by Rodin's critics and let's talk about other devices that draw energy from the vacuum.

There are "free energy" threads where that question would be on-topic, but this thread is about Rodin's Vortex-based mathematics. But since you suggested setting that aside hopefully this isn't too far off-topic.

First of all, what's a "vacuum"? I don't know of a pure vacuum anywhere in the known universe so I'm not sure why I'd try to worry about something that doesn't exist. There are places close to a vacuum, like interstellar space, but even there we wonder if our own sun may be about to enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas, so how much of a vacuum is interstellar space?

One way to characterize a vacuum is the relative absence of pressure (like the atmospheric pressure on Earth). But does the pressure ever actually go to zero? Very close to it perhaps, and perhaps the pressure is too small to measure accurately, but probably not zero. So what that means is that any volume of space has varying amounts of matter. If that matter is a gas like the Earth's atmosphere, and the pressure (or relative vacuum) changes, it's possible to extract energy from those changes in the pressure. This is partly how my father's clock draws energy:

Atmos clock

It gets the energy it needs to run from temperature and atmospheric pressure changes in the environment

So I posit that a "perfect vacuum" may not exist, in that there's always some matter present in even the emptiest regions of space, however sparsely it's distributed. So once you accept there's no perfect vacuum, you must ask a different question, how do you get energy not out of a vacuum, but out of space where matter is present?

That's what the Atmos clock does. It's actually pretty clever.

Originally posted by Bobathon
As was already pointed out in this post on a related thread.

No, "alternative science" is not "pseudoscience." It's cutting edge science and the opening up of suppressed knowledge and technology.

~~~~~~~~~

The "Low Cost..." paper is not linked on Rodin's site as other papers are. I have not found a .pdf for it.

The Air Space America convention referenced is mentioned in this passage from page 4 of the "2010 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference Program" under Prime Number Symmetry Generation in Rodin Coil Design:

Marko Rodin was originally selected in 1988 by Defense Science Magazine to present his findings at Air Space America under the scientific topic of Space Power Propulsion Systems on behalf of the United States government and will be sharing the most recently made advances in Rodin Coil model design and Vortex Based Mathematics technologically for antennaes, portable power generation, computer artificial intelligence, 3D speakers, electric cars, and an in depth explanation into how to end all diseases and produce unlimited food crops by harnessing the heretofore undetectable Morphogenetic Field Bio-Aetheric Template contained within DNA and is responsible for all gene expression.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
[No, "alternative science" is not "pseudoscience." It's cutting edge science and the opening up of suppressed knowledge and technology.

The only cutting edge that guy has that has anything to do with science is a multi-blade razor that he shaves his head with.

He needs to use it on his shoulders occasionally too.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You're clever, aren't you?

But you haven't said anything of substance whatsoever.

I thought posting nothing of substance was a requirement for this thread? Certainly the so-called maths it is about fits the bill.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


What do you know about it?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

He was also invited to present his paper, "Low Cost Propulsion Systems Based Upon the Re-evaluation of the Physics of Matter", at the Air Space America convention, the largest U.S. convention of its type.

Well they clearly didn't think much of it, because there is no mention of this paper anywhere on the web apart from Rodin's own site, Rodin's own claims, and people parroting Rodin's own claims.

(In case you're tempted to say that that's because it's top secret, well don't. Just don't. People don't brag in public about top secret work.)

Do you have anything that could help suggest that Rodin's words are not entirely empty claims?

reply to post by Bobathon

Taking people's claims about themselves at face value is the weakest, least reliable, most idiotic and most dangerous form of 'research'.

Especially self-deluded morons.

So the primary source is no longer the primary source? Makes perfect sense... I'll bet that means a secondary anonymous guy on an internet forum trumps anything he says about his ideas and his life.

Circular reasoning = trueness. Listening to what he has to say is idiotic, especially when he is a self-deluded moron? Or is it the other way around... He is a self-deluded moron, so listening to what he has to say is idiotic. Or he is idiotic in what he is saying because he is a self-deluded moron...

Fallacy fail...

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

I deny that listening to the primary source is idiotic for the purposes of this discussion, and I deny that he is a self-deluded moron. You obviously already think that he is a self-deluded moron, therefore you see no reason to listen to anything he says.

You already assume your conclusion is correct.

reply to post by Bobathon

Do you have anything that could help suggest that Rodin's words are not entirely empty claims?

How much time have you spent doubting Rodin... time which could be spent familiarizing yourself with his work?

Declaring empty claims is just another way to pawn off any research onto others besides yourself. I have something which can help suggest that they are not empty claims... how about go watch some youtube videos?

I am not sure anyone could prove the merit of VBM in any kind of way which would satisfy what you want to have spoon fed to you.

Perhaps I have not directed you specifically to further research, but I have to Buddhasystem and Arbitrageur.

Rodin deserves to be put into proper context: mysticism, philosophy, occult and esoteric philosophy, Tesla, Keely, Mesmer, Wheeler, Leedskalnin, Bohr, Kuhn, Pauli, Jung, Podkletnov, Searl, Einstein, Enlightenment and Rennaissance, Intellectual History in general, etc. etc. etc.

Rodin is embedded in an environment - as we all are.

He is perhaps not aware of all of this work, but it is ignorant to make him stand on an isolated island when there is a continent of relevant context.

This discussion is and always has been in the field of philosophy of science. Such a shame that we can't seem to recognize this as a starting point for fruitful discussion about his ideas - not his mental health.

reply to post by beebs

Beebs, I agree that in the complete absence of any capacity to think for oneself, either critically or logically, and the complete absence of any willingness to apply ANY means of evaluation of claims at all, primary sources are what you're going to rely on, and your argument would be true. Go with who you like!

Bring in the ability to think, and most people would require a bit more.

Your argument says that because every nutjob on the internet is a 'primary source', their word is all you should need. Surely you can see that that's a bit silly.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Do you have anything that could help suggest that Rodin's words are not entirely empty claims?

How much time have you spent doubting Rodin... time which could be spent familiarizing yourself with his work?

Very little.

That's a request for evidence, Beebs. It's what people use to relate an idea that purports to be about the real world with the real world. Unless you know of any other method?