"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by buddhasystem
OK, then you really need to scratch "mathematics" from the title of this thread. It can be titles "religious revelations of Marko Rodin".

Math is math.

A mystic can explore it and apply it in his/her fashion to God's creation.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
With "God's fingerprint", one does not have such luxury. Hence, nothing can be developed, especially if the primary guru (Rodin) can't explain or predict jack.

There are many people who are taking what is on the record from Rodin and running with it. There is plenty of substance that his endorsers saw, and plenty of substance that people like Alex Petty, with similar math, see. With open-source R&D, something good will come from Rodin's vortex math.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
OK, then you really need to scratch "mathematics" from the title of this thread. It can be titles "religious revelations of Marko Rodin".

Math is math.

A mystic can explore it and apply it in his/her fashion to God's creation.

You seem to be confusing a "mystic" with "mathematician". Again, if you say "mystic teaching", go ahead. Using the word "math" is just another case of a dictionary hijack and completely false. Mathematicians PROVE their theorems. Rodin does not. So fine, he's a mystic, but there is no math.

reply to post by buddhasystem


There's math. You just don't understand it or appreciate it, apparently.

There is more than one way to look at things.

There is such a thing as innovation. Thinking outside the box. Going against the grain. Going against mainstream dogma.

It's what the movers and shakers do.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

There's math. You just don't understand it or appreciate it, apparently.

OK Mary, if it's so apparent to you, please educate me.

It's what the movers and shakers do.

You seem to have developed a fondness for the "thumbs up" smiley, but no Mary, it does not replace proof or reason.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Rodin's math creates a platform that accurately models how all energy moves.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Rodin's math creates a platform that accurately models how all energy moves.

How so?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Alex Petty's explanation: a Rodin coil sets up opposing aether flows, which generate a rotating magnetic field without any mechanical apparatus. He calls the numbers perturbations in the conscious field, upon which the universe builds itself. He describes his own similar math, the Foundational Number System (FNS), as a system that maps harmonically to the cosmos and consciousness.

I believe this math is drawing on the wisdom of the ancients, whose technology was superior to ours (admitted publicly), as evidenced by the pyramids, which we could not build today.

Keywords/concepts from Colin Hill's article:

1. 
   Telecomm. technology provides a better explanation of the dual-slit experiment than does the quasi-scientific version.

   
   

2. 
   Slits behave like tuned (resonant) antenna elements.

   
   

3. 
   No evidence is apparent here of particles/photons or of wave/ particle duality. Light is apparent only after the incidence of electromagnetic waves on macro surfaces (groups of atoms).

   
   

4. 
   The purported “awareness” and “consciousness” are neither manifest nor pertinent. Similarly the concept of “Existence through Observation”.
   

No wave/particle duality...

No observer effect...

I like reading the thoughts of people like Colin Hill, who is retired, allowing him to be outside of the pressures brought to bear by the mainstream academic/military/industrial/government complex. (They don't have to conform to protect their livelihood or prestige.)

This makes all the difference. They're relatively free to think independently and creatively.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I agree there is a vortex in the toilet.

I did a search for "vortex math r&d" which brought up a .pdf file. The file is for a Euro. Jnl of Applied Mathematics (2007) paper entitled "Numerical simulation of vortex dynamics in Ginzburg-Landau-Schrödinger equation."

From the Conclusion:

There have been extensive studies in recent years concerning the quantized vortex dynamics
governed by the GLSE, yet many interesting questions remain open. By proposing an
efficient, accurate and unconditionally stable numerical method for the GLSE with nonzero
far-field conditions in two dimensions, and applying this new numerical method
to the GLSE, we numerically examined issues such as the stability of quantized vortex,
interaction of two vortices, dynamics of the quantized vortex lattice and motion of vortex
under inhomogeneous external potential in the GLSE. . . .

Interesting.

Interaction of two vortices...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Alex Petty's explanation: a Rodin coil sets up opposing aether flows, which generate a rotating magnetic field without any mechanical apparatus.

Wait wait, I thought you were talking about math, right? That was the context. So let's revisit math. So, how placing a few numbers in the sudoku affects the environment? How the algebraic qualities of the number 9 lead to "aether flows"? Remember you told me that it was "apparent" to you that I didn't understand math -- so once again, this is your chance to explain.

He calls the numbers perturbations in the conscious field

That's not math, once again.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's not math as you see it.

How does Rodin's math affect the environment or lead to aether flows?

That is a question for an engineer to answer.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It's not math as you see it.

As I said... You are committing a dictionary highjack (you took that trick from the charlatans). It's not just "me". There is a thing people call "math". And this is not it. Pathetic wannabies like Rodin use it to elevate themselves to the eyes of the gullible. Same applies to "vortex", used as currency by many frauds, Swerdlow being one.

Look what you wrote:

Rodin's math creates a platform that accurately models how all energy moves.

"Accurately models" means a few important thing:
a) the phenomenon can be quantitatively and numerically described. There is an obvious and abject failure to do so.
b) "all energy" implies fall forms of it. Again, this needs to be demonstrable.

a+b means that your statement is actually false.


And of course, we observe energy movement all around us that has NOTHING to do with the donut shape.

How does Rodin's math affect the environment or lead to aether flows?
That is a question for an engineer to answer.

Engineers know, use and apply math. They rely on what's observable, verifiable and frankly, real. What you are writing about here is pure mysticism. So you are totally out of luck. Newton was an expert in math and physics, and his very real mathematical achievements are used by very real scientists and engineers. Rodin is not expert in anything and only knows how to wave hands.

I like reading the thoughts of people like Colin Hill, who is retired, allowing him to be outside of the pressures brought to bear by the mainstream academic/military/industrial/government complex. (They don't have to conform to protect their livelihood or prestige.)

Hill also has a 77 page .pdf online that I'm reading now and recommend: "Electro-Fractal Universe."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I like reading the thoughts of people like Colin Hill, who is retired, allowing him to be outside of the pressures brought to bear by the mainstream academic/military/industrial/government complex. (They don't have to conform to protect their livelihood or prestige.)

Hill also has a 77 page .pdf online that I'm reading now and recommend: "Electro-Fractal Universe."

Spectra of the Einstein Cross show that we are looking at a single object.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Lastly, regarding the double-slit experiment:

From Page 84:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've stumbled across a website by a person who describes himself as a retired industrial scientist. I think his article "The Dual-Slit Experiment Myth" is thoughtful. The concluding sentence is:

The inference is that De Broglie's quantum frequency changes are more likely than positional jumps . . .

The above link comes from the website fractaluniverse.org.

The retired industrial scientist, Colin Hill, states:

There are two classic dual-slit experiments. In the first, both slits are illuminated. The second holds that light is made to pass through only one. The accepted error is that there is no difference between the two respective interference patterns. As will be explained, this is not so.

He doesn't understand the double-slit experiment.

In the first both slits are illuminated. In the second both slits are also illuminated but observation causes the wave function to collapse, or so they say. I posted a popular video animation of the experiment in my last thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The key result is that the pattern is different, not that it's the same. So he either has absolutely no idea what he's talking about or he's not explaining himself very well. So when he says: "The accepted error is that there is no difference between the two respective interference patterns. " it doesn't make any sense. In effect the interference pattern when both slits are illuminated without observation collapses under observation so you don't get the interference pattern in the observation case.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I like reading the thoughts of people like Colin Hill, who is retired, allowing him to be outside of the pressures brought to bear by the mainstream academic/military/industrial/government complex. (They don't have to conform to protect their livelihood or prestige.)

Hill also has a 77 page .pdf online that I'm reading now and recommend: "Electro-Fractal Universe."

I didn't have a computer when I was growing up. When I wanted to play with graphics I had something called an "etch-a-sketch". Now kids and grownups have computers to play with graphics, which is a lot better than the etch-a-sketch.

And chapter 14 in that pdf finally answered the burning question I've had about why some people are so excited about fractals...the answer is you can draw them on the computer screen and play with them so it's the modern replacement for the etch-a-sketch. Pretty, and fun to play with, I admit.

But I don't see how that will lead to unlimited energy, curing all diseases, unlimited food supply etc any more than playing with my etch-a-sketch did. It won't.

So as long as I know that all I'm supposed to do with fractals is appreciate them as an art form, I can do that. I like art. But I'm a little bit sick of hearing how fractals are the key to understanding the universe when nobody can explain how that is so, they just make grandiose proclamations with no supporting evidence.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, I read the link... The poor guy is all over the place...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And chapter 14 in that pdf finally answered the burning question I've had about why some people are so excited about fractals...the answer is you can draw them on the computer screen and play with them so it's the modern replacement for the etch-a-sketch. Pretty, and fun to play with, I admit.

Quote Chapter 14, which is "Overview, Forecast and Some Conclusions," to support your criticism.

Edit to add: Did you mean Chapter 15? If so, did you read the chapter?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Electro-Fractal Universe"

The headings of the Table of Contents:

Introduction

Chapter 1
Light Dawns
The Seed
Fractal patterns in space
A search engine as a research tool
Orthodox theory questioned

Chapter 2
The Neglect of Spatial Electricity
Wrong assumptions
The Pioneers of Electricity
Theorists dominate
Bondi decries scientists’ arrogance
Mandelbrot’s fractal view
The threat to conventional cosmology

Chapter 3
Fractals in General
What Makes a Fractal?
Spirals, the fractal hierarchy
The universe made by one simple repeat process
Fractal means structured, not accidental
The main fuel, electricity

Chapter 4
Fractals in Space
Unlimited size
Importance of shape
Hubble theory faulty
Hot plasma and redshift

Chapter 5
Electricity in Space
The Real Cosmic Driving Force
Electricity’s unique properties
The three energy levels/modes of plasma
Electricity generators in space and thermonuclear fusion
Stored magnetic energy
Hydrogen sheets- ubiquitous plasma lattices

Chapter 6
The Hierarchy
Homogeneity - untenable assumption
Similarity and structure
Pitfalls of reductionism
Cosmic uncertainty

Chapter 7
Large Structures and Morphology
Herschel’s flat galaxy strip
Bruce and flatness
Inadequacy of gravity
The fractal dimension
Flat superclusters

Chapter 8
Form Flatness and Failure
Radio mapping
Growth not entropy
COBE and WMAP flops
The electrical theory has answers

Chapter 9
The Mechanism: Plasma Ejection and Its Products
Cosmic electrical grid
Spatial generators
Spatial “Lightning” loops
Galactic seeds

Chapter 10
Plasma Ejections and Supposed Ancient Origins
Spitting comets
Terrestrial ejections
Living Nebulae

Chapter 11
The Sun, Other Stars and Planets
More wrong assumptions
The flat sun
Alternators.
Gravity’s minor role

Chapter 12
Cosmic Clocks
The Sun’s time-keeping
Negative resistance

Chapter 13
Galaxies and Morphology
Fractal variation
Complexity from Simplicity

Chapter 14
Overview, Forecast and Conclusion
Universal recycling
The cosmic harvest
Ptolemy lives
Conservatism
Profitable pattern-spotting

Chapter 15
Digital Image Processing
Amateurs’ role
Research by computer

Mary, the link I provided, about Einstein Cross and measurements of its spectra, demonstrates falsehood of one of Hill's assumptions. If he doesn't bother to read about the evidence, how much stock can anyone put into his pronunciations? He seems to be eager to inject as much vitriol into his book as possible, which dilutes its content and make him look silly, especially with flops like this one.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why did you not specify the assumption in question?