"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

Arb, did you see anything concrete in that paper, regarding "experiment test"? I don't think many people did. It looks like an interesting paper but I only had a short time to review it for now. Honestly I don't see anything revolutionary in there, then again I'm not a theorist.

Mary , you've got to be called Liz in real life for sure .

I would like to thank you and ought to let you know that I am reading some of your posts .

Rodin and his 9's are interesting for sure but I really can't see a practical application of what Rodin talks about .

Perhaps I am being too lazy .

I also think that his claims are outrageously shocking . I would like to understand him better but after watching his videos , I am still in dark so to speak .

reply to post by buddhasystem


My take is they made three assumptions, and said essentially that if those three assumptions are true, then one interpretation is preferred. I didn't notice any experimental data confirming any of the three assumptions, rather it seems like they are suggesting experiments be conducted to confirm or reject the assumptions, using current or near future technology. So no, I didn't see that either.

I also have questions about the premise of the paper, but so far those relate to the way the Nature article described the premise of the concept which didn't sound logical to me. I'm hoping a more thorough reading of the paper will clear that up.

reply to post by 23432






Duh! I have no idea what you're talking about!!

Don't worry , it's a joke .



I am a silent reader of this thread and your objections makes an interesting read .

2pence

Originally posted by 23432
Rodin and his 9's are interesting for sure but I really can't see a practical application of what Rodin talks about .

I believe he was truthful in his assertion that the U.S. Dept. of Defense has utilized a version of his technology for antennaes.

I believe the person who was healed without having to have skin grafts was healed by the Rodin coil, and that the vitamin E and aloe vera were not responsible for the healing instead.

At this point, Rodin's coil will not be developed by venture capital, but by open-source R&D, because Rodin has decided to accept donations only, and has encouraged people to go for it and let's see what develops.

That's what I intend to do: Follow on YouTube the young men (like Jason Verbelli) who are working on the coil as an open-source project. I think it's exciting.

Originally posted by 23432
I also think that his claims are outrageously shocking . I would like to understand him better but after watching his videos , I am still in dark so to speak .

Since Rodin is a mystic, I don't know how much of what he claims comes from his "knowing," and how much comes from the feedback he has gotten from his endorsers. These are the things I'm trying to research.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe the person who was healed without having to have skin grafts was healed by the Rodin coil, and that the vitamin E and aloe vera were not responsible for the healing instead.

Why do you believe that?

reply to post by buddhasystem


The answer is probably intuition. If I have read information, such as Rodin's explanations which used to be posted on his website but now has to be gotten from places such as scribd.com, and it comes across to me as honest and informed, and, I have observed body language and tone of voice of people, such as the Google video posted in the OP, and the video of Jamie Buturff and Rodin, and the video of Jamie Buturff and John Fiala, the person who was wounded, I make a decision as to whether I find claims to be credible, or not. Also, my other research into energy medicine aligns with the claim.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

What does the Pusey et al paper have to do with whether or not you were arguing for Born's interpretation, or whether the interpretation is irrelevant to you and instead visualizable models should be given up for formal, abstract math, which is the position of Heisenberg?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The answer is probably intuition.

I see, it's all faith-based. Can't argue with that!

reply to post by buddhasystem


I've got news for you.

Everything you believe you believe from your intuition, as well, whether you know it or not.

All "facts" are facts as we believe them to be, from what we see or hear with our own eyes or ears, according to what our gut tells us is being perceived.

I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him.

His comments about Marko's maths are:

Most of Marko’s stuff is fanciful nonsense. I found some of what he was involved with rather interesting, and ended up formalizing some of the mathematics around his various series, which I discovered to be decimal parity series. I wrote this up in a paper for him, but can’t vouch for any of the rest of it.

Here is something that is perhaps more enlightening:

www.youtube.com...

I have one paper published on this topic, and a second I am presenting in Hong Kong in December. Unlike Marco’s fantasies, this is real.

reply to post by Mary Rose



Thank you for the answers .

I do think your intuition could be onto something here .

Against my better judgment , I have found myself asking what if Rodin has a valid point but unable to prove it to todays academic circles .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What does the Pusey et al paper have to do with whether or not you were arguing for Born's interpretation, or whether the interpretation is irrelevant to you and instead visualizable models should be given up for formal, abstract math, which is the position of Heisenberg?

Physicists have been debating how to interpret quantum mechanical observations for many decades. There are multiple interpretations.

None have been proven.

The Pusey et al paper is a recent addition to the debate about the correct interpretation which suggests what the authors believe to be testable via current or near future technology experimentation. Therefore they believe if we don't yet have the technology to test their assumptions, we soon will, and the authors believe if their assumptions are tested then we may be closer to having evidence to support the correct interpretation.

If thousands of the world's finest physicists have been unable to settle the debate after many decades, it seems a little silly to expect that beebs and I can read some stuff from the internet and pontificate what we believe to be the correct interpretation and settle it that way. What's needed is proof rather than pontification. And I thought the Pusey et al paper was relevant because it presented an idea on how we might be able to get some proof (which sort of highlights the fact that proof is still lacking).

Now if I put science aside, I think the "many worlds" interpretation is silly. However, if someone can prove to me that the many worlds interpretation is correct, I'm not so married to the idea that it's incorrect that I can't be persuaded to change my view by evidence.

So this leaves us with at least two alternatives which Beebs alluded to but I don't completely agree with the way he characterized the alternatives. This is a better characterization of the two possibilities:

Copenhagen versus deBroglie-Bohm

The Copenhagen interpretation states that the particles are not localised in space until they are detected, so that, if there is not any detector on the slits, there is no matter of fact about which slit the particle has passed through. If one slit has a detector on it, then the wavefunction collapses due to that detection.

In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. The final position of the particle on the detector screen and the slit through which the particle passes by is determined by the initial position of the particle.

When I look at those two possibilities, I honestly don't know which is correct.

This is why we need experimental evidence to resolve which of these is correct. And it's also possible that neither is correct, and the "many worlds" which I don't like, is correct, or perhaps there is a correct explanation other than those three theories.

So it is at this point I must repeat the advice of esteemed physicist Richard Feynman because it bears repeating, and I believe it will lead us to the correct answer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But whatever way it comes out, nature is there and she's going to come out the way she is.

And therefore when we go to investigate her, we shouldn't pre-decide what we're trying to do except to find out more about it.

So my answer to you, to Beebs, and anyone else who asks, is to agree with Feynman that we shouldn't pre-decide the answer, before we have the answer. The Pusey et al paper is relevant because it suggests one way we might be able to get an answer through experimentation.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him.

His comments about Marko's maths are:

Most of Marko’s stuff is fanciful nonsense.

I wish I could give you 10 stars for that!

So much for the views of Rodin's endorser, I guess Blake might be sane after all. I wonder how he feels about Rodin using him as an endorser all these years given he thinks most of it is fanciful nonsense.

Then again if you read the endorsement by Blake, it wasn't really a blanket endorsement of Rodin's work, but rather it seemed somewhat narcisisstic and somehow ended up being more about Blake than about Rodin, not totally unlike the additional clarification you received in your e-mail correspondence.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Then again if you read the endorsement by Blake, it wasn't really a blanket endorsement of Rodin's work, but rather it seemed somewhat narcisisstic and somehow ended up being more about Blake than about Rodin, not totally unlike the additional clarification you received in your e-mail correspondence.

Surprise, surprise - an ego being displayed for all to see.

Yes, as has been pointed out previously, there was a split between Blake and Rodin - something to do with a patent that Blake was pursuing.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So my answer to you, to Beebs, and anyone else who asks, is to agree with Feynman that we shouldn't pre-decide the answer, before we have the answer. The Pusey et al paper is relevant because it suggests one way we might be able to get an answer through experimentation.

Yes, Feynman stated the obvious.

But you seem to think that experiments are like God downloading answers to a computer.

No matter what new experimentation shows, it will have to be evaluated and interpreted and debated all over again.

Click here for more information.