"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That sounds like a reference to monopoles even though he doesn't use that exact terminology . . .

From an online dictionary:

monopole [ˈmɒnəˌpəʊl]
n Physics
1. (Physics / General Physics) a magnetic pole considered in isolation
2. (Physics / General Physics) Also called magnetic monopole a hypothetical elementary particle postulated in certain theories of particle physics to exist as an isolated north or south magnetic pole

Leedskalnin is describing two currents, one current 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 stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed.

He goes on to say:

One current alone if it be North Pole magnet current or South Pole magnet current it cannot run alone.

To run one current will have to run against the other.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I don't get your point.
Are you trying to suggest that Leedskalnin's hypothesized north pole individual magnets wouldn't be considered monopoles?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

Where is the Vortex in the math of Rodin ?

Good question indeed .

I think it is the middle of the donut , so to speak .

Invoking the God's name doesn't have a place in modern physics - which goes without saying - yet , this is exactly what is being discussed here .

If there was a God and/or Field , how would maths and physics would deal with the existence of both or one ?

I think Rodin is having a good go at it , once you look at it from his perception obviously .

Therefore , I am not disputing his claims with modern physics & math .

I am trying to see it as he does and admittedly I am not a Bahaist nor Physics student .

Can you fail to appreciate the schematics ?

Can you ?

Originally posted by 23432
Where is the Vortex in the math of Rodin ?

Good question indeed .

I think it is the middle of the donut , so to speak .

That's not what his picture claims to show, he calls the hole a "vortex hole", not a vortex, so get your terminology right! :

From Rodin's article called "Vortex Based Mathematics" in Extraordinary Science and Technology Jan-Feb-Mar 2010 edition page 10:

Can you fail to appreciate the schematics ?

Can you ?

Here is an artist's conception of a vortex swirling into a black hole, where you can see the gravitational attraction is pulling in things like stars, planets, and even a spaceship:

Black Hole


Yet the black hole at the center of Rodin's coil doesn't even seem to have enough gravity to pull in some iron filings in the above photo. I interpret Rodin's own photo demonstrating his concept, as evidence that his claim is nonsense. Black holes would have a definite gravitational field and should be able to attract at least small iron filings. If the mass of the moon were compressed to black hole size, the event horizon would be smaller than a pencil eraser yet the moon has about 1/6 of Earth's gravity.

It's pretty hard for something like that to go undetected.

I appreciate the photo Rodin provided of the iron filings above the Rodin coil. Unfortunately the very same photo contradicts his black hole claims. It doesn't show the iron filings being attracted to any black hole in the middle of the donut shape.

From "Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

. . . Before my research work I knew nothing about electricity. The only thing I knew was that nobody knows what electricity is. So I thought I am going to find out why they do not know. I thought that if electricity could be made and managed for over a hundred years, then the makers do not know what it is, there is something wrong about it. I found out that the researchers were misled by wrong instruction books, and by one-sided instruments. Voltmeters and ampere meters are one-sided. They only show what is called by instruction books, positive electricity, but never show negative electricity.

Now you can see that one-half of the electricity escaped their notice. If the researchers had used the same kind of equipment I use to demonstrate what magnetic current is, they would have found out a long time ago what electricity is. The positive electricity is composed of streams of north pole individual magnets, and negative electricity is composed of streams of south pole individual magnets. They are running one stream of magnets against the other stream in whirling right hand twist, and with high speed.

Protons and electrons--Are you sure they are not the north and south pole individual magnets. If we have anything we have to show that we have it. Show the base where it came from, and show how the thing functions. We can find concentrated north and south pole individual magnets in the earth, in a metal. With the metal we can demonstrate that the free north and south pole individual magnets are circulating in the earth. In the North Hemisphere the south pole individual magnets are going up, and the north pole individual magnets are coming down. Those free circulating north and south individual magnets are the building material for the magnet metal we find in the earth. This should show that the north and south pole individual magnets are the real atom builders, and not the protons and electrons. I think the north and south pole individual magnets are running in an orbit around a common core in an atom the same way as they run in an orbit around a common core in the perpetual motion holder that I made. The only difference is that an atom has a small orbit, but the perpetual motion holder has a big orbit.

I have never seen an atom, but I think the atom drawings are wrong. They should be drawn to fit the earth on account of the fact that the atom is a part of the earth. The earth has two magnet poles. This means that each pole has an equal pull and push to hold the earth together, and so each atom should be built as it could have two poles. In that case both forces that make magnet poles should run around a common core (the core could be a particle of sunlight). . . .

Matter: Every form of existence, whether it be rock tree or animal, has a beginning and an end, but the three things that all matter is constructed from has no beginning and no end. They are the North and South poles individual magnets, and the neutral particles of matter. These three different things are the construction blocks of everything. To begin, a meteor rock falls in the sun, the sun dissolves the rock to the final division of matter, the North and South pole individual magnets, and the sunlight then sends them out here. The vegetation absorbs some of the magnets and the sunlight, and then grows. We eat the vegetation products and build up our body, and then when we die and our body is cremated, the ashes can be made into a rock, and then the rock can be sent to the sun to be dissolved again. The North and South pole magnets can be detected while they are coming down from the sun by radio. The radio waves are made by the North and South pole magnets. They spread around the earth, and the North and South pole. Magnets that are coming down from the sun are hitting the radio waves across, and so disturbing their paths. That is the reason why we cannot hear the radio as well in the day time as we do at night. At night time we only get those magnets that are coming down from other suns or stars, but in the day time we get them all. Today, yesterday's sunlight is neutral particles of matter. If you had been high up above the earth yesterday there would not have been as much light there as there was on the ground. There you would have seen stars the same as at night time down here. In the empty space between the stars there is not much light, so the stars can be seen. Sunlight is light when it passes through some obstruction like the air, by going through an empty space it is not much of a light.

ELECTRONS: Millions of people all over the world are being fooled by the non-existing electrons. Here is how the electrons came into existence. Thomson invented an imaginary baby and called it an electron. Rutherford adopted it and now the men with the long hair are nursing it. . . .

reply to post by Mary Rose


Thanks for posting this, thus making it quite clear that Edvards Liedskalninsh's concepts have nothing to do with reality, in any form or shape. Same sort of drivel as Carr's. Minus the candle that was supposed to illuminate the nuclear launch

reply to post by buddhasystem

I thought you'd be relieved to find out what's holding the Earth together:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

The earth has two magnet poles. This means that each pole has an equal pull and push to hold the earth together,...

Of course planets such as Venus, that no longer have their magnetic field, have nothing to hold them together anymore right? That's why it fell apart....wait...no it didn't!

Oops, it didn't take much to show the fallacy of that claim!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, I hope you didn't miss that, from your link:

I think the Radium and Uranium were built up inside the earth with high pressure, and heat, while the North and South pole individual magnets were circulating through the earth. During the time the Radium and Uranium were inside the earth they absorbed more of the individual North and South pole magnets than they normally could hold, and so now while they are on top of the earth they let the magnets go so they can become normal again.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

Continuing:

. . . The electron has a brother and its name is proton, but it is heavy and lazy. It remains stationary in the middle, but the electron has to run around it.

To the electrical engineers the positive electricity is everything, the negative electricity is nothing, but to the physicists the negative electricity is everything, and the positive electricity is nothing. Looking from a neutral standpoint they cancel each other, so we have no electricity, but we have something. If we do not know how to handle the thing that comes through a wire from a generator or a battery, we will get badly shocked. Read the booklet "Magnetic Current" (MAGCURNT.ASC) then you will know what the thing is, and the way it runs through a wire.

The invention of an electron came by a tricky method in using electricity in a vacuum tube. Normally whether it be a generator or a battery, the positive terminal will have to be connected to the negative terminal, but in the vacuum tube two batteries with different strength were used, the smaller battery was connected normally, but the larger battery's negative terminal was connected to the smaller battery's negative terminal, and the positive terminal was left alone. That connection gave the negative terminal a double dose of strength, and so it became hotter and could push more. It was called cathode and the positive terminal anode, and the electricity that passed from the cathode to the anode was called electrons.

In case the inventor had used normally direct methods to find out what the electricity was he would have found out that the positive and negative electricity is in equal strength, and are running positive electricity against the negative electricity. That can be seen by connecting each of two pieces of soft iron wire with each terminal of a car battery and then by putting together and pulling away each loose end of the soft iron wire. More sparks can be seen coming out of the positive terminal than from the negative terminal. This direct method is more reliable than the tricky method in the vacuum tube. The trouble with the physicists is they use indirect and ultra- indirect methods to come to their conclusions.

If the inventor of electrons had a vacuum tube in which his electrons could run close to the top of the vacuum tube from the west side of the cathode to the east side of the anode and then would hang a vertically hanging magnet that is made from three-inch long hard steel fishing wire, and then hang one magnet pole at one time right on top in the middle of his stream of electrons, then he would have seen the north pole magnet swinging north, and the south pole magnet swinging south. The same thing will happen if the magnets are held above any wire where the electricity is running through. Those two vertically hanging magnets prove that the electricity is composed of two different and equal forces. Another way to prove this is to connect a flexible wire loop east end of the wire with positive battery's terminal, west end with negative terminal, raise the loop one inch above the floor. Put U shape magnet one inch from loop, north pole south side of the loop. The north pole magnet will pull in the loop. Put the south pole magnet in the same place. It will push the loop away. Put the south pole magnet north side of the loop, this time it will pull the loop in. Put the north pole magnet in the same place, it will push the loop away. This indicates that electricity the same as a magnet bar is composed of two equal forces, and each force is running one against the other in whirling right hand twist, but those forces in the wire have higher speed, and both forces are coming out across from the same wire. One of the forces is north pole magnets and the other is south pole magnets. They are the cosmic forces. Your electric motor is turned around on its axis by north and south pole magnets. Even you could not start your car without the north and south pole magnets.

If electricity is made with north and south pole magnets and the electric motor is turned around on its axis by the north and south pole magnets as is the fact, then this will bring up a question, where then are those Thomson electrons. They are not around the electric motor. The plain answer is they are non-existing.

"This direct method is more reliable . . . "

I love the free-thinking, autonomous, self-educated , self-directed inventors of this world! The more eccentric, the better!! (Means they don't cave in to peer pressure.)

reply to post by Mary Rose


Wow....

One thing is clear, as long as someone start with "Science has it all wrong", is doesn't matter how much crap comes after that, people like Mary will endorse it. It has been a while since I read so much nonsense as Leedskalnin is writing. You must willingly want to be fooled in order to buy it.

Arb

Nice of you to put those pictures up .

Terminology confusion is ripe on this thread .

Vortex hole or Vortex itself ..... hmmm .... usually , it is dead calm in the centre of any giving Vortex .

That is , the forces which are acting upon the medium that creates the geometric shape of Vortex , are actually not present in the centre of a giving Vortex .

Maybe Rodin is differentiating between the " Vortex Structure "and the Structureless centre of any giving Vortex .

Of course the medium in Rodin's case is a unit of energy which follows a natural path , allegedly .

One thing is for sure , it is obvious what mainstream science calls " A Blackhole " , is not the same as " The Field " .

Rodin's coil failing to attract those iron particles ?

Well , have you ever saw a Vortex in any other medium such as water and air to NOT have a Void at the very centre of the said Vortex ?

I think you are extrapolating a tad bit too much .

LMAO, I actually read this long, rambling quote about nonsense. PLB has got it right. It doesn't matter how stupid or pseudo-deep something is, Mary will follow it as long as the author says science is wrong.

Just out of curiosity I have got to ask this question ;

Who believes that the current model of an Atom is actually accurate enough ?

reply to post by 23432


Accurate enough for what? The current model has helped us create many useful technologies. For example, the whole idea of a semi-conductor is based on it. This made it possible for the very computer you are using right now to exist. Computers in turn have been very helpful in finding the cure to many diseases.

That doesn't mean that it is the definitive model, but it does mean that it has helped humanity progress significantly the past decades. (depending on how you define "progress" of course).

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by 23432

 

Accurate enough for what? The current model has helped us create many useful technologies. For example, the whole idea of a semi-conductor is based on it. This made it possible for the very computer you are using right now to exist. Computers in turn have been very helpful in finding the cure to many diseases.

That doesn't mean that it is the definitive model, but it does mean that it has helped humanity progress significantly the past decades. (depending on how you define "progress" of course).

Accurate enough for a compherensive understanding of nature of energy , of course .

It is ok to state the obvious .
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined .
In fact it is a changing model which depends of new ideas and new discoveries .

I personally think that the structure of a giving Vortex might contain some clues as to how Energy Units might be moving thru space-time .

I think trying to explain the universe from within an Atomic model is not totally accurate nor definitive enough either .

It reminds me of the story of so called " Junk DNA " .

reply to post by 23432


I don't really understand why you say "of course". I personally do not think a model of the atom will ever give us a comprehensive understanding of the nature of energy. Maybe you mean to say the standard model?

I don't really see how vortexes extend our understanding of the world around us when the connection with reality is missing. It is fine with me to create a model from a mathematical starting point, but in the end you have to show how it fits into reality. You can't expect others to do that for you. Give me a day and I can make up dozens of "theories" of how reality is constructed. They would be completely meaningless though and would not increase our understanding.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by 23432

 

I don't really understand why you say "of course". I personally do not think a model of the atom will ever give us a comprehensive understanding of the nature of energy. Maybe you mean to say the standard model?

I don't really see how vortexes extend our understanding of the world around us when the connection with reality is missing. It is fine with me to create a model from a mathematical starting point, but in the end you have to show how it fits into reality. You can't expect others to do that for you. Give me a day and I can make up dozens of "theories" of how reality is constructed. They would be completely meaningless though and would not increase our understanding.

I would love to see anyone come up with a model as elobarate and as mysteries as Rodin's Maths .

Connection with reality might be missing as of today but that might be due to technology short comings and not necessarly a proof of there being no connection .

I also don't think that the compherensive understanding on nature of energy can be gained from understanding the Atom's structure alone .

Doesn't Rodin also seems to suggest somewhat that the standard model is not quite accurate and even if it was , probably couldn't account for the existence of " The Field " .

Vortexes doesn't extend our understanding of how energy might behave on a quantum level ?

I don't know but I would love to experiment a bit to see whether I can actually build something that would reveal a previously undiscovered side of a Vortex Structure in any medium .

Now , I have some nano particles somewhere in my shed , in the form of aero gel .... maybe I can build some type of " 9 in motion detector ".

ha ha ha

reply to post by 23432


The whole point of making a model is to demystify how the world works. It seems to me that a mysterious model is kind of a paradox. I don't see the use of it other than entertainment.

Originally posted by 23432
. . . so called " Junk DNA " .

A perfect example of the need for a change in the mindset of mainstream science.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by 23432

 

The whole point of making a model is to demystify how the world works. It seems to me that a mysterious model is kind of a paradox. I don't see the use of it other than entertainment.

This world which you speak of , doesn't include a God .

Therefore I submit that the objection is noted but yet I found it to be inadequate .

See , Rodin states that his model includes the concept of God .

Any objection which is ruling out this model while not accounting for the existence of God , will have to be operated outside of it's own remit.

Proper debunking of Rodin's theories would have to include God . It is not adequate to state that there is no God ; therefore the case must be closed .



It is indeed entertaining to fumble about and wonder about on Rodin's reasoning and Logic .

Yet , I can't dismiss his ideas as easy as some other people .

Well , I am not a scientist per se , so no skin of my nose I guess .