"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
To replace the missing graphic from page 73:

That includes Bearden's device too! But he needs to draw a standard transformer in the diagram since that's all Bearden has.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Rather than focusing on Bruce DePalma's character, let's discuss the information in the article.

Sigh.

Sooooooo tiresome this thread is.

Someone has to do it. Why me, God?

Talking to yourself again I see.

Because most people are focused on the newer charlatans who are actually doing something, like Rossi.

Most of these folks you're promoting like Rodin and Bearden aren't even promoting themselves anymore, so why should you be doing it?

And I'll be honest, if they could produce an over-unity machine that worked and really did solve the world's energy problems, I wouldn't care so much about their character.

However, given we have centuries of history littered with many, many delusional and hoaxing people with perpetual and over-unity claims that never panned out, there's more than ample reason to view more contemporary claims along such lines with great skepticism. Lots of people have been giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, but he's not delivering the goods that I can see.

How to be a responsible debater:

1. Do not use the fallacious technique of ridicule.
   
2. Do not obfuscate by changing the subject.
   

How to know what's going on in the world:

1. Develop a backbone with which to stand up to the face of evil.
   
2. Take off your blinders and earplugs.
   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Do not obfuscate by changing the subject.

Because this is something you would never do, right?

Actually I don't have a problem with you changing the subject, (I've lost count of the number of times you've done so), but it just sounds funny to hear that coming from someone who has probably done that more than anyone else. Besides, if you're referring to my post, I did mention Rodin and his endorser Bearden.

And more importantly, you asked a question, and I answered it. But you probably thought it was a rhetorical question!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
How to know what's going on in the world:

1. Develop a backbone with which to stand up to the face of evil.
   
2. Take off your blinders and earplugs.
   

You would do well to follow this advice, Mary. Every time you proclaim the need to "think out of the box", you dutifully put on your blinders and earplugs to avoid learning about what's in the box OR, more importantly, where the box is.

Originally posted by 23432
Debate is only pointless when there is a Sophism.

en.wikipedia.org...

In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are derogatory terms. A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood

A lot of what Rodin and other nutcases have said falls into that category. So it's pointless to debate.

Rodin says that he has created some perfect paths for energy in his donut. Well, as been evidenced in the videos already posted in this thread, this is false, even though it might appear logical to some.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I say the current model of the atom leaves out the most important component: field/vacuum/space/energy/God/consciousness.

Well it's just remarkable -- you are acting EXACTLY as Feynman described in his lecture -- you are just desperate to make this world more philosophically pleasing! And facts be damned! Any knowledge that does not include God is incomplete, according to you. What a Medieval character...

Rodin has no intent of deception , the man is like an open book imho.

Engaging in demagoguery would of been a more leveled claim .

Rodin is no sophistic scholar .

Originally posted by 23432

Rodin has no intent of deception , the man is like an open book imho.

He seems to believe in what he's saying (which is false), so one way or another, he's obsessed with ideas that lead him to deceive himself and however cares to listen (and is prone to self deception).

He says that he created a black hole. This can't possibly be true. It does sound "logical", though, if you buy into this crap about perfect intonation of God's name and all that. Seems to fit "sophism".

If you've done no investigation of the New World Order agenda, front groups, staged terror, alternative history, and alternative science, you are not scientific. You can't be, because you're like the priests who refused to look into Galileo's telescope. You're assuming that your belief system derived from your formal education and work experience is trustworthy when in reality it is not completely trustworthy. Distinguishing truth from untruth is a colossal task requiring diligence, humility, and an open mind.

Furthermore, a scientist thinks for him/herself and does not bow to claims of authority made by others.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432

Rodin has no intent of deception , the man is like an open book imho.

He seems to believe in what he's saying (which is false), so one way or another, he's obsessed with ideas that lead him to deceive himself and however cares to listen (and is prone to self deception).

He says that he created a black hole. This can't possibly be true. It does sound "logical", though, if you buy into this crap about perfect intonation of God's name and all that. Seems to fit "sophism".

My take is that he sure does believe in what he " preaches " .
Obsessed ?
Not fair really .
Anybody who spends a life time on any idea must be obsessed by definition .
In fact , being obsessed is almost like a pre-requisite for such an outlandish idea which would in effect change the world as we know it .
Self deception ?
That is a tad bit too much imho . I don't think he is self deceiving knowingly .
Colour of his faith might lead him astray from the strict & narrow line of science and that could be seen as self deception perhaps .

I think he is saying that the energy becomes matter/mass via vortex structure . What compells the energy unit to embark upon a sequence of movement within a sphere ?
God's will of course , what else ?
Because he calls it God , does it necessarly mean it is God ?

At his worst Rodin can be a demagog for Baha'i Faith . Sophisticated Baha'ist , he ain't .

At his best Rodin has actually uncovered something which can potentially have usefull applications in various areas.

reply to post by 23432


I think that religious texts can be read for the clues about Mother Nature they may contain. The clues can then be used as a basis for investigation and experimentation.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I've done investigation and it's a load of crap. On the other hand you have done no investigation in science so you are like a priest who won't look into the telescope, And just because there is authority does not mean it is evil. Man's greatest sorrow is his inability to accept any higher authority, even if the authority is correct.

Originally posted by 547000
Man's greatest sorrow is his inability to accept any higher authority . . .

Baloney.

Most people are scared to death of authority figures. Most people have no idea of their own reasoning and intuitive abilities. Most people are not in touch with their potential. Most people have all they can do to make a living and get by.

Most people are good and wouldn't harm a flea. Most people can't imagine the extent of evil that goes on behind the scenes.

Oh, so you only picked one thing out of my post but ignored everything else? Maybe I should have said "the source of man's sorrow". Everyone thinks they're exceptionally brilliant but they are just deceiving themselves.

To look behind the facade of the establishment:

• infowars.com
  
  
• projectcamelotportal.com
  
  
• cuttingthroughthematrix.com
  
  
• whale.to
  

The last time I challenged Arb to physics, I got a linear mathematics quiz. Relates to the SAT's, but falls short when contributing to this thread.

So what you're forced to mull from BS, Arb, and 547 are toxic concoctions of nuclear physics laced with additives of virtual particles. This recipe is dwindling in appeal because its seasoning is gradually being stripped via the nature of reality. Russellian Science predicted elements unknown to man. It continues to deliver tidbits beyond our perceived spectrum. Rodin, Haramein, Stubblefield, Keely, Tesla, etc., etc. are icing on the cake. If you choose to ignore contributions made outside the established paradigm of science, you become an egotistical fool...

More so than these fellow posters portray.

Originally posted by Americanist
Rodin, Haramein, Stubblefield, Keely, Telsa, etc., etc. are icing on the cake.

More like meadow patties in the meadow. Did you forget Leedskalnin? He's produced some of the most notable meadow patties in the meadow.

If you choose to ignore contributions made outside the established paradigm of science, you become an egotistical fool... More so than these fellow posters portray.

The folks posting in this thread didn't ignore any of it. They inquired about it, asked for the supporting evidence to be presented and explained, and then made assessments based on what the evidence supports.

In Rodin's case, the evidence points to nothing more than a coil, one which is not particularly well suited for practical applications since what some people reported as some of the "magical properties" of the coil were actually manifestations of its leakage and inefficiency making it far less suitable for commercial use than more efficient coils. So the evidence for his coil has been evaluated and it shows that it's not such a good coil. Regarding the black hole in the middle of the coil, and his other claims, the evidence has been evaluated for those claims....there isn't any evidence.

This puts discussing Rodin's other claims on par with discussing the fire-breathing dragon in the psychologist's office. Are you ignoring the fire breathing dragon in the psychologist's garage, just because the psychologist has no evidence for it? Hopefully you'd be open minded enough to ask to see the evidence, and only then when you found out there wasn't any, would you then dismiss the claim. That's exactly what's happened with Rodin's claims of the black hole, etc. It hasn't been ignored. It's been evaluated, and dismissed based on the evaluation of the lack of evidence. That's quite different than ignoring it.

The reason for the linear math lesson? The black hole and vortex sounds like esoteric stuff, But if Rodin can't even get simple basic mathematics right, how's he going to get more complicated and esoteric stuff right? This is why it's helpful to look at how Rodin fails to understand even the some of the simplest concepts of mathematics.

Originally posted by Americanist
So what you're forced to mull from BS, Arb, and 547 are toxic concoctions of nuclear physics laced with additives of virtual particles.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'll settle with simple math relying on nothing more than symbols/ doubling circuitry coalescing changes of our nature (fractal/ helical growth) over virtual-mass-less particles any day. The fairy tale nuclear science fair has gone on long enough. You espouse two unsupported (yet somehow related) realms along with dark matter, dark flow, dark energy, etc., etc. to maintain your shred of credibility.

Our technology is the only limiting factor here while accurately replicating the toroidal scale and structure of the known Universe.