"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is his description so far in agreement with mainstream physics, or, is this alternative physics?

I mentioned this work here

It's basically something like what my 7yo nephew would write if he wrote down what he learned by playing with magnets. Some things will be right, and some things will use his imagination, since he isn't yet familiar with the scientific method.

The first image is pretty much right.

The second image has a somewhat muddled description, and like PLB I have no idea what he's trying to say about particles that are so small they can pass through anything, and can pass through air easier than metal, that's complete nonsense.

reply to post by -PLB-

I agree part of that is nonsensical but the beginning of the second image I didn't read as a claim of monopoles, but rather if you chop the magnet into little particles each one is an individual magnet with both north and south poles so that much is right. But the claim of those little particles moving through metal more easily than air makes no sense. As you suggested, he might be talking about fields, since fields do that, but he says particles. So it could be just muddled communication, rather than alternative.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I’m reading the 51 page .pdf file “Magnetic Current” by Ed Leedskalnin.

The .pdf is available at freeenergynews.com: "Index of /Directory/Magnets/Leedskalnin."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
. . . it is wrong.

Maybe not.

Maybe he knew things you don't.

One thing I've learned from all the reading I've done is that the alternative physics community has a lot to say about magnetism and electricity and the fact that mainstream physics has it wrong, and, that mainstream physics doesn't really try to explain causes. Not really interested, as a matter of fact. Only interested in effects. And calculating things.

If he knows something I don't, he should communicate it, and above all, support it with evidence. I need more than someone saying something in order to believe a claim. A reoccurring theme in your posts is "person x said y". I am pretty confident that I am correct when I say that you are never going to show what exactly it is I do not know.

There is no "fact" that mainstream physics has "it" wrong. Science is descriptive and not prescriptive. Physicists try to describe the world the best they can.

There are other words to describe the activity of making up reasons why things work the way they do, and it is not "science". Its called "philosophy". Basically you are complaining that "science" is not what you wish science to be.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
. . . it is wrong.

Maybe not.

Maybe he knew things you don't.

One thing I've learned from all the reading I've done is that the alternative physics community has a lot to say about magnetism and electricity and the fact that mainstream physics has it wrong, and, that mainstream physics doesn't really try to explain causes. Not really interested, as a matter of fact. Only interested in effects. And calculating things.

Mary I already pointed out on page 62 when you quoted Leedskalnin as claiming that academics have it wrong, that he doesn't even know what academics claim:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Free Energy and Free Thinking," this is very interesting:

So is this, regarding Ed Leedskalnin:

Ed said that the academic idea that they are sending electrons through wires as you electric service is also false. Helical coils of electricity flow in spiraling rings around the wires.

Decades before Leedskalnin wrote that, there was a battle between Thomas Edison's direct current, and Westinghouse and Tesla's alternating current. The former sends the electrons through the wires, the latter just wiggles them back and forth, and won the battle. Academics knew this and Leedskalnin shows nothing but ignorance about this and when he claims academics were wrong, he doesn't even seem to be familiar with the academics' understanding.

So no, you can't say Leedskalnin might know something about electromagnetism science didn't or doesn't know, unless you have some evidence to back up that claim, and you obviously don't have any. In fact, the opposite is true, it's apparent that decades before Leedskalnin wrote "Magnetic Current", electrical engineers knew things that Leedskalnin didn't know decades later.

Leedskalnin might know some things we don't know, like who his "sweet sixteen" was. Was it Agnes Scuffs, Hermīne Lūsis, or some fantasy girl who wasn't real? We aren't sure about that:

Coral_Castle

But he never demonstrated anything except some basic experimental knowledge and a whole lot of theoretical ignorance regarding electromagnetism.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
. . . it is wrong.

Maybe not.

Maybe he knew things you don't.

Mary, what kind of discourse is that? You are asking a question in a seemingly honest fashion, and when you get an honest answer to same, you state "oh well you don't know much, do you?".

One thing I've learned from all the reading I've done is that the alternative physics community has a lot to say about magnetism and electricity and the fact that mainstream physics has it wrong, and, that mainstream physics doesn't really try to explain causes. Not really interested, as a matter of fact. Only interested in effects. And calculating things.

You don't have a clue about mainstream physics, and hence you don't have any idea what it can or is attempting to do.

The reason that "alternative" people are fascinated with magnets is, I think, due to the fact that imho many of them did not fully develop their mental capacity and are at pre-school or elementary school level. Magnets indeed display behavior without parallels in the purely mechanical world which we learn about first, and develop concepts of. A kids drops a toy and the toy falls down. A magnet, on the other hand, appears to be a source of invisible force that does not bear relation to the simple world the child learns about. More developed people may choose to go ahead and learn the difficult science of magnets and how they operate. Those who lack capacity or motivation, however, are stuck at the level of "wow magnets are cool". This is evidenced by countless videos featuring the "neosphere". The latter is but a spherically shaped neodymium magnet. The term "neosphere" is a feeble attempt to make it sound more significant than it is and convey the spirit of magic. It does not impart any new meaning in describing a magnet. And of course again, what we see in the video is some dumb dude staring at a magnet spinning in oscillating magnetic field and talking about implosion of space time or similar crap. Oh saying "wow it spins real fast, must be extracting energy from vacuum". Just like that.

If you cared to learn (and you don't) you could have discovered a lot of things that science explains about magnets. But again, it's just easier to kick back and feel important (and staying ignorant).

reply to post by buddhasystem



buddhasystem, just give up. Everytime I go to myATS page, i see that you've made the most recent post in this thread.

You've obviously spent an enormous amount of time and (fruitless) effort trying to tell everyone here that they don't know what they're talking about, and that Rodin is a nutjob.

...to no avail. It makes you look very desperate to lurk this thread 24/7 in hopes that someone comes along that you can prey upon.

Just give up, you can't prove that Rodin's philosophy is false, because if you could do that, then you would have done it by now and you would not be here constantly defending against innovative ideas.

EVEN IF rodin's concepts aren't viable, at least people are looking forward with a new vision of the future. people are actually TRYING to innovate...but you're here to squash their hopes and dreams.

I visited this thread dozens of pages ago, and you did the same thing to me. all these people want to do is think outside their "box", and you are the troll at the boundary of their box telling them that everything "outside the box" is a bunch of nonsense.

So please, for the sake of FREEDOM OF INFORMATION and the human need to communicate with other like-minded individuals, just leave this thread alone...You might be surprised to find that there are lots of cool stuff outside this thread! and outside the frame of your computer monitor!

with my kindest regards, signed: the next person you will attempt to (purposefully?) intellectually harass into only seeing what's inside "the box".

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
You've obviously spent an enormous amount of time and (fruitless) effort trying to tell everyone here that they don't know what they're talking about, and that Rodin is a nutjob.

I type real fast, so it's not a significant amount of time I need to spend here. And in case it was lost on you, I visit for my own sake and mainly for comic effect. If I didn't come to this thread, I wouldn't have taken a look at Carr's writings, and that stuff is priceless in its unadulterated idiocy.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
I visited this thread dozens of pages ago, and you did the same thing to me. all these people want to do is think outside their "box", and you are the troll at the boundary of their box telling them that everything "outside the box" is a bunch of nonsense.

The problem isn't thinking outside the box. That's actually a good thing, if you know what's inside the box and you have a good reason to be thinking outside it.

The problem is when people claim to be thinking outside the box, and they don't even know what's inside the box they claim to be thinking outside of. That tends to make people look pretty silly.

So before you can think outside the box, don't you have to at least know what's inside the box first to even know if you're actually thinking outside it? That's the root of the problem with ignorant people making ignorant proclamations, like the one I just addressed by Leedskalnin saying academics have it wrong, when he didn't even know what academics have. That's beyond silly. How can he think outside the box if he doesn't even know what's in the box?

Likewise with some of the posters in this thread claiming the Rodin coil has special properties when they don't seem to be familiar with the properties of other coils. You have to at least know what properties an ordinary coil has, before you can claim that the Rodin coil has special properties.

Regarding hopes and dreams, you are encouraged to have them, just follow Sagan's advice from his book "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" and aim them in a productive direction rather than modeling them after what some charlatan is telling you. Rodin's misrepresentations are the "dark" that Sagan referred to, and several people have tried to use real science and math as a candle to illuminate that darkness.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Just give up, you can't prove that Rodin's philosophy is false, because if you could do that, then you would have done it by now and you would not be here constantly defending against innovative ideas.

Good innovative ideas withstand the test of critical thinking as Sagan describes in that book:
The Demon-Haunted World

Skeptical thinking essentially is a means to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He states that reason and logic would succeed once the truth is known. Conclusions emerge from premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.

As an example, Sagan relates the story from the Chapter "The Dragon in My Garage" (which he notes follows a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard L. Franklin[1]) of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

That's actually a pretty good analogy.

Is there any more evidence for any of Rodin's claims, than there is for evidence of an invisible fire-breathing dragon in the psychologist's garage? I'd say those claims have the same amount of evidence: zero.

If someone actually demonstrated critical thinking skills in evaluating Rodin's claims, then we might have a basis for discussion. But lacking those, we might as well be talking about the fire-breathing dragon in the psychologist's garage. Do you really want to destroy the hopes and dreams of someone who thinks they have a dragon in their garage, but doesn't have any evidence for it? If you did, you might actually be doing them a favor. Then they might get some real hopes and dreams, that aren't based on a fictitious dragon.

Buddha

Why not entertain the idea of the " Field " for the purpose of this discussion .

After all , this is what Rodin is stating .

I am sure that type of contribution would be as valuable as your current ones .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The .pdf is available at freeenergynews.com: "Index of /Directory/Magnets/Leedskalnin."

I see that on the website leedskalnin.com, Matt Emery claims to have a "Unipole Theory" based on the writings of Edward Leedskalnin.

However, the term "unipole" does not appear in the above .pdf file. I'm not sure the term applies.

reply to post by buddhasystem


great, now that i know you don't even take yourself seriously, then the other posters here need not take you seriously. that makes things easier, cool.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


hm, elitist much? i've never heard a more self-entitled response, in what could most concisely be summarized with "I know what's good for you."

not a single person in this thread has claimed to be a physicist or an expert. ...except for members like you and buddhasystem. You both have proclaimed yourself more expert than anyone else here, I don't think even yourself could deny that. That may be reasonable if you have years of history in these subjects on a professional level, but it does not give you authority to define the boundaries of intellectual thought.

Who are you to define what's inside the box and what's outside the box for other people? When you (so ignorantly) define what is "allowed" inside the box and what is "not allowed" inside the box, you define the boundary of intellectual freedom itself.

you made a really nice little argument and used interesting and complex sentence structure in your reply, but it's easy to see through...and it's surprising that you let yourselves act like such a know-it-alls.

reply to post by 23432


um, nice try. infantile tactics. besides, this thread is dead to me.

---

all i'm saying here is: let people fuc#ing think, god damn. this internet forum is supposed to promote DISCUSSION, and you're manner in which you "inform" other posters tends to suppress discussion, if you haven't noticed. maybe you all should join a forum that's more about behavior control, I think you'd like it, and probably have a lot to say!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see that on the website leedskalnin.com, Matt Emery claims to have a "Unipole Theory" based on the writings of Edward Leedskalnin.

However, the term "unipole" does not appear in the above .pdf file. I'm not sure the term applies.

Monopole, unipole, what's the difference between semantics and dictionary abuse among friends?

Monopole

One of Maxwell's equations, now called Gauss's law for magnetism, is the mathematical statement that there are no magnetic monopoles. Nevertheless, it was pointed out by Pierre Curie in 1894[7] that magnetic monopoles could conceivably exist, despite not having been seen so far.

Monopoles seem to be kind of like bigfoot. It's hard to prove they don't exist, but you can't really say they do until someone shows you evidence of one, which so far nobody has seen. I doubt the existence of either one, but I could be convinced otherwise with evidence.

Originally posted by 23432
Why not entertain the idea of the " Field " for the purpose of this discussion .

After all , this is what Rodin is stating .

If by field you mean this: vacuum

This hypothetical vacuum state often has interesting and complex properties. For example, it contains vacuum fluctuations (virtual particles that hop into and out of existence). It also, relatedly, has a finite energy, called vacuum energy. Vacuum fluctuations are an essential and ubiquitous part of quantum field theory. Some readily-apparent effects of vacuum fluctuations include the Casimir effect and Lamb shift.

It has some interesting properties. However if by field you mean the claims of Rodin, or some of the other scientists turned pseudoscientists that were named who have made claims with no evidence to support their claims, we may as well discuss the fire breathing dragon in the psychologist's garage, which has the same lack of evidence.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
all i'm saying here is: let people fuc#ing think,

Not only do I want to let people think, I'm actually trying to encourage it.

THINK!

reply to post by metalshredmetal



I actually happen to think that there is some understanding to be found in vortex maths.

Rodin obviously in not a nutcase in any sense of the word . Man has theories and ideas , which is fine by me .

I think you got me confused with Buddha and Arb , because I actually want to put it to test what Rodin claims is happening .


Maybe double torroid structure is responsible for the travels of energy , maybe not .

Many valuable contributors are on this thread and obviously Buddha and Arb are also valuable for they provide an anchor to known and accepted realities of this life .

Anyhow , what do you think is happening when Rodin's numbers are following the path that they do ?

I personally like to think that he is trying to describe a geometric pattern which energy unit has to follow so that it can aquire/inherent mass .

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Monopole, unipole, what's the difference between semantics and dictionary abuse among friends?

Obviously, you missed the point.

The term "monopole" does not appear in the .pdf either.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It has some interesting properties. However if by field you mean the claims of Rodin, or some of the other scientists turned pseudoscientists that were named who have made claims with no evidence to support their claims, we may as well discuss the fire breathing dragon in the psychologist's garage, which has the same lack of evidence.

Arb

I am interested in discussing how energy becomes matter/mass via geometry , which is what Rodin seems to be describing .

Standard Model does have some unanswered questions , amongs them , how exactly did the energy became matter ?

Really , do you have any idea as to how energy unit became mass / matter ?

I mean , one minute , you have the void and next ka-booom and you have all this matter and mass floating around .

OK , the energy became mass/matter due to high energy concentrations .

What path it followed ?

Maybe energy is clever so it knew how to not waste itself in duplication , hence Rodin's geometric ideas ?

Similar to Buddha , your efforts would be better valued if you also have entertain the idea of Field .


Note : Field means outside of Self in this context and probably inclusive of Vacuum .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432
MicroSurgery and Aeronautics are where my work to be found .

My recent posts have made me remember your inventions. You said they're not like a Rodin coil, but I'm wondering whether they were inspired in any way by alternative physics? Are you self-educated in any way?

I am not educated in Physics beyond A level .

I went to uni if that is what you are asking .

Originally posted by 23432


Buddha

Why not entertain the idea of the " Field " for the purpose of this discussion .

After all , this is what Rodin is stating

OK, Rodin may have stated that. He also covered the importance of correct spelling the name of God, among other things, in addition to stating that "solar systems spin out in a saucer" and that he will cure all decease. Oh that last one, we can really use that. There are very few things that Rodin didn't "state". My point is, what field? How does he describe it, and specifically how it is connected with his sudoku?

reply to post by Mary Rose

This is from page 12 of 51 of the pdf you linked to of Leedskalnin's pamphlet "Magnetic Current":

Magnetic current is the same as electric current. Current is a wrong expression.

Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other.....

That sounds like a reference to monopoles even though he doesn't use that exact terminology, so you apparently didn't comprehend my reference about "semantics", or didn't read Leedskalnin's pamphlet, or both.

And there's no evidence of what he says in case you were wondering. In fact we don't recognize "magnetic current", just electric current. In magnets we refer to something called "magnetic flux".

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432


Buddha

Why not entertain the idea of the " Field " for the purpose of this discussion .

After all , this is what Rodin is stating

OK, Rodin may have stated that. He also covered the importance of correct spelling the name of God, among other things, in addition to stating that "solar systems spin out in a saucer" and that he will cure all decease. Oh that last one, we can really use that. There are very few things that Rodin didn't "state". My point is, what field? How does he describe it, and specifically how it is connected with his sudoku?

What Field ?

That is the question , isn't it ?

He mixes his religious beliefs with mathematical patterns and attributes meaning(s) to it .

He assumes the existence of the Field and states that the energy units follows a certain pattern to become mass / matter .

Many people also think that there is a merit to the idea of the existence of " The Field " .

It is worth looking at it especially in the process of energy becoming matter/mass .

Energy becomes matter/mass naturally , every day . Perhaps this energy is following a pattern in order to become matter / mass .

You do have to entertain the idea that it is possible to have a Field which gives rise to Matter/Mass .

Originally posted by 23432
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

I actually happen to think that there is some understanding to be found in vortex maths.

Mmmm, where is the "vortex" in this "math"? Observation of certain properties of number 9 does not form any mathematical model, because the existence of "vortex" does not follow from it in any way, until Rodin invokes the mighty name of God. At this point, it's squarely religion (or magic) and doesn't have anything to do with math.