"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Arbitrageur


His research is invaluable for the wave of the future.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Delving into the Montauk Project or Stewart Swerdlow’s work is a needless tangent for this thread.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Delving into the Montauk Project or Stewart Swerdlow’s work is a needless tangent for this thread.

Why? You seem to have been a willing participant in the discussion of Bearden, Reich etc. You also thought, contrary to what you are saying now, that Stewart's knowledge is extremely relevant in the context of this thread, because you went as far as to go and ask him about the "vortex" -- which is the topic of this thread. According to your own actions, Mr.Swerdow, his work, experience and opinions are extremely important for this thread. And according to you he's a paragon of "suppressed knowledge" which you said many times is what you want to discuss. You declaring that it's "needless" (which I understand because even you start feeling uncomfortable and squeamish when having to face the grotesque nonsense of his claims) seems a little hypocritical at this juncture.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Delving into the Montauk Project or Stewart Swerdlow’s work is a needless tangent for this thread.

From my perspective it wasn't needless at all, since I was trying to understand your posts and put them in context and perspective.

Once you revealed that you're funding the efforts of the former ambassador to the planet Umo through the purchase of his materials for sale, the context of your posts became more clear to me.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The quoted text is not from Blue Blood, True Blood. It is from page 137 of Montauk - the Alien Connection. I have both books. The first sentence is left out, however:

The next time Preston used Wilhelm Reich procedures, he brought his tape recorder.

Just for the record.

But you made your point about craziness.

However, there is craziness in the universe.

There indeed is craziness in the universe, we agree on that. Perhaps the point we don't agree on, is how to recognize it when we see it.

The way I try to recognize it is when people make dramatic and grandiose claims that never materialize. I suspect anyone talking about any ONE of the first four starred items on this list who can't back up their claim with proof is probably crazy:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9ab1585ce06.png[/atsimg]
Bearden talks about the first one with no proof so to me that makes him crazy. Rodin talks about all four of those plus a whole lot more.

Claims of being a former ambassador from the planet Umo, and kids who can time travel by warping space and time using the energy from their genitalia is beyond just plain crazy.

Apparently Reich's work may not have been so harmless. This author claims he was molested by a doctor that Reich trained and certified to work with children:

wetgoddess.net...

Hanging over Brenner's childhood was his parents' interest in the pseudo-scientific theories of Wilhelm Reich, the notorious post-Freudian psychiatrist. Reich claimed to have discovered "orgone energy," a primordial force that was the origin of the sex drive, gravity and the aurora borealis, among other things. All human problems, including mental and physical illness, social pathologies and even droughts, were attributable to blockages of orgone energy in the individual, the society and the environment.

This isolated, cultic mentality led to an upbringing which was quite strange by 1950's standards. At an early age, Brenner was sexually molested by an "orgonomist" (orgone energy doctor) trained and certified by Reich to work with children. He is one of a group of several adults who have found each other through the Web and are now correlating their independent memories of childhood abuse by this pedophile. He plans to document this terrifying experience in a forthcoming autobiography, Growing Up In The Orgone Box.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like to grow up in a cultist household where the parents believed in orgone energy and subjected the child to such nonsense and apparently, molestation. So it appears that Reich's form of craziness may have actually been more harmful than helpful, and I can see why the courts determined that they needed to take action against him. This type of court action is not suppression, it's protection of innocent people.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Claims of being a former ambassador from the planet Umo, and kids who can time travel by warping space and time using the energy from their genitalia is beyond just plain crazy.

Agreed. Now, in this interview it does go quite a bit further:


...stories of s3xual ritual magic at 16:30, and get this, at 29:50

...they would eat people, they would eat little children and babies, ...they would also eat small dogs and cats...absolutely, quite incredible to observe

Yup, that's some authority on vortices. Money well spent, Mary.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



do you think he's shaved his shoulders yet??

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think I have the science knowledge to develop a unified field theory myself

I've noticed in the past that you have been conspicuous by your absence when Beebs has queried you regarding your interpretation: "Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think I have the science knowledge to develop a unified field theory myself

I've noticed in the past that you have been conspicuous by your absence when Beebs has queried you regarding your interpretation

Mary, you seem to insinuate that Arb is hiding from Beebs because he's not capable of fielding his ideas and understanding of the issue. This is both pathetic and untrue. Arb has engaged Beebs on many occasions, on that and other similar topics, in the threads that you even participated in (but as usual, never care to read or understand). A simple search on this site can quickly confirm that.

Which reminds me that the idea "Space is a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves" is one of the stupidest and nonsensical pronouncements I've encountered. You can hear that sort of things mostly from Beebs.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

...they would eat people, they would eat little children and babies, ...they would also eat small dogs and cats...absolutely, quite incredible to observe

Yup, that's some authority on vortices. Money well spent, Mary.

Those were the aliens doing that though, right? Non-benevolent aliens don't think any more about eating a human than we think about eating a chicken. Some people even eat dolphins which we think are semi-intelligent creatures, and Swerdlow implies dolphins are aliens, did you catch that? So if we're eating aliens, why can't the aliens also eat us? (Actually I don't eat dolphins out of some respect for their intelligence but I don't think they are aliens, and I never heard of the laws Swerdlow mentioned that says you can't be alone with either dolphins or ET aliens).

At least Swerdlow took a dig at the "new age" people who think all aliens must necessarily be benevolent. I have no idea what they will be like and different aliens would probably behave differently, but I think Hawking has a point that we should keep a low profile while our technology is so primitive.

I'm a big science fiction fan, but Swerdlow's stuff isn't even particularly good science fiction, because it's not a semi-realistic projection of currently known technology like good science fiction attempts to be. For example, the Earth and the Mars being "hollow" with something like a sun at the center isn't even realistic for science fiction. And some of his claims are so ridiculous even if you wanted to believe him he makes it impossible. For example, he said that some people were accidentally transported to the bottom of a volcano. How could he possibly know this? Did he go to the bottom of the volcano and see that is where they ended up? See how it doesn't even make any sense for fiction?

He said he went to Mars, both the underground hollow part, and the surface, but he didn't say anything about any spacesuit so I don't know how he is supposed to have survived the surface of Mars.

However when he explained the difference between a wormhole which transports you to another place in this reality, versus a vortex which transports you to a place in another reality, and he talks about going through the vortex, if was the first thing he said that I almost wanted to agree with; at least the part about him being in another reality. I guess he never made it back to this reality.

At one point the interviewer said something like incredible, and I was wondering if he was admitting he didn't find it credible in a surreptitious way so as not to disrupt the interview? I couldn't have conducted that interview with a straight face, but since I couldn't see the interviewer's face I don't know f he did or not either?

Now if only he could figure out how to ride that vortex back to this reality?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
he said that some people were accidentally transported to the bottom of a volcano. How could he possibly know this? Did he go to the bottom of the volcano and see that is where they ended up?

A volcano doesn't really have a "bottom". It's fed from a magma chamber, which is a different kind of object. A kitchen faucet doesn't really have a "bottom", does it?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've noticed in the past that you have been conspicuous by your absence when Beebs has queried you regarding your interpretation: [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread699975/pg3#pid11470590]"Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math."

It is very challenging to debate concepts in physics without an agreed-upon language. The simple example I gave in this thread was when beebs preferred to call spacetime "aether". This is not an accepted terminology. Regarding the other thread, here are some highlights of the language barrier:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by beebs
I try to interpret everything with wave terminology, for example referring to a 'wave packet' or quantum(corpuscle) of standing waves rather than a 'particle'.:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Paying more attention to dictionary definitions is something you could benefit from, and it would help here, I think.

Originally posted by beebs
To me, its pretty clear we have to alter our language, or else our dictionary, if we are to coherently argue this time around. Let us try to establish common ground before we go any further....

Why must we use the word particle at all, if the internal structure is wavelike? If the 'internal structure' is wavelike, what is the 'external structure'? Is there really reason to distinguish between in and out in the first place, in a photon? If not for the photon, why the need to distinguish between a proton - and its 'internal' quarks?

And then Beebs says:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by beebs
I really don't understand why you think I'm rewriting a dictionary, it seems to me you are just unfamiliar with using these terms and therefore feel they are not appropriate. This is simply not true.

I complained about his dictionary abuse again, and first he says we need to rewrite the dictionary or change our language, then he says he's not re-writing the dictionary. Which is it?

As Buddhasystem says, semantics do matter.

And when someone tries to say that what we call a particle, according to how we define a particle, is not a particle, the debate becomes pointless.

An analogy is the argument some people make that time is not the oscillations of a cesium clock. What they're probably trying to say is that time has some mysterious aspects since it's not rigid but rather relative, which is a valid point to make, however the semantics do matter and time is indeed determined by the oscillations of a cesium clock simply because that's how we define it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A volcano doesn't really have a "bottom". It's fed from a magma chamber, which is a different kind of object. A kitchen faucet doesn't really have a "bottom", does it?

Perhaps he meant "magma chamber" but he just said "bottom" to dumb it down for those of us who aren't as wise as him?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A volcano doesn't really have a "bottom". It's fed from a magma chamber, which is a different kind of object. A kitchen faucet doesn't really have a "bottom", does it?

Perhaps he meant "magma chamber" but he just said "bottom" to dumb it down for those of us who aren't as wise as him?

Perhaps. It's fascinating though that he was able to determine the exact nature of that location -- magma chamber vs some place in the upper part of the volcano. It's pretty darn hot there, innit? How can one see through magma? Then again, if you are on the first name basis with flesh-eating sadistic aliens, how bad can a simple volcano be...

My post mentioning Stewart Swerdlow appeared on page 9:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've just posted a question and gotten an interesting answer on Stewart Swerdlow's expansions.com:

Mary Rose says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

I have seen the word “vortex” applied as a type of mathematics. It seems that it is based on Pythagorean math and that it is thought to be related to alternative energy technology.

Is the vortex significant in that it is something that is part of suppressed knowledge/technology?


*
Stewart says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:18 pm

A vortex connects different realities together. I explain this in my Simultaneous Existence DVDs.

I thought it was an interesting answer. I also find Rodin’s work fascinating.

Now, I suppose either of these two topics would be relevant to this thread:

1. Does Rodin’s vortex math model connecting different realities together?
2. Does Rodin’s vortex math have anything to do with simultaneous existence?

Swerdlow's information may have a bearing on the topic at hand.

However, I would suggest that before we delve into that possibility, that Arb should address Beeb's inquiry that went unanswered on the "Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math" thread, in view of this stance:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I am not sure how to say this, but I don't think I have the science knowledge to develop a unified field theory myself, and it appears to me that you have even less science knowledge than I do, so I'm not really expecting you to be the one to come up with a unified field theory, if that's what you are suggesting you have knowledge of, or maybe I misunderstood your post.

Since I have yet to fully study physics, perhaps we can talk about this. Perhaps this is case of bad reporting but I don't know the math of quantum mechanics to comment here. Can BS or Arb explain this? I think beebs was right after all. If so, I am ready for him to rub it my face. You can't argue the truth of math. Go.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
1. Does Rodin’s vortex math model connecting different realities together?

There is no "vortex math model". Rodin observed some of the properties of number 9, and that's all he did. There are more, actually, found not in some "suppressed literature", but in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

He arbitrarily said there was a vortex. There is zero evidence that there is one. There is zero foundation for there to be one. There is hardly math and there is no vortex.

2. Does Rodin’s vortex math have anything to do with simultaneous existence?

Since there is no vortex, this statement is meaningless.

reply to post by 547000


Hi there 547,

let's discuss it elsewhere -- feel free to start a thread.

There is a thread here.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I thought I just addressed that?

Did you see my reply before you asked that?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Bottom line, after you had your discussion about language, you said this:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now you're asking the right question! And I didn't write the dictionary, so I don't have an answer to that. You only have to use the same words as everyone else if you want other people to understand you. That's a goal for me since I want people to understand me, is it a goal for you? If so, then don't rewrite your own personal dictionary, when you're the only one who knows your new definitions.

Here's a pdf file explaining the answer to that question in more detail . . .
So yes, a photon can be called a "wave-packet" and as you can see that source references specific particle-like behavior that can be attributed to such wave-packets.

Then, Beebs responds, and posts excerpts, and concludes his post with this:

Originally posted by beebs
So I am arguing for Schrodinger, and de Broglie's interpretation. Are you arguing for Born's interpretation? Or is the interpretation simply irrelevant to you, and instead visualizable models should be given up for formal, abstract math -- which is the position of Heisenberg?

What's your answer?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I'm looking for proof.

Without that all we have to compare are different types of speculation.

Even the Pusey et al paper in the thread that was just linked to mentions that their idea is "amenable to experimental test using present or near future technology", so we can test their assumptions. I don't know their assumptions to be true.

They lean toward one interpretation but I still have to read the paper thoroughly which I haven't done yet. However the question of quantum interpretation has been an open question for many decades and it would be nice if it was finally answered. But if it was easy to answer, it would have already been answered.