"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by buddhasystem

I just happened to have a religious sect interested in you new invention.
1 question though. With all we have been hearing about black holes, torsion, vortexes and donuts, can you fill all that into it?
Also could you please add time travel!
It is a must, our leader would like to go places!
And yes, it is important that it provides a good food source, and infinite energy too.
Sincerely:
7 paths Enlightenment of Shiva, Kali and Bhramin Transcendental Church of His Infinity Wisdom is all thing small.
Now thats my name, the church is actually called Church of the Whoppie Cushion Donut with Sugar Spriklings (you would understand, it very enlightening name

reply to post by BBalazs


I see BS and Arb now have a new ally.

3 on the ridicule trainride. Have a blast!

reply to post by Mary Rose


maybe. maybe not.
i was just pointing out the difference between religion and science.
in religion everything is possible (based on a good guru off course), in science everything WILL BE possible, based on good models, accurate observations, etc.

reply to post by BBalazs


Mainstream science at present has become a religion. Suppression of free energy technology can be compared to the Inquisition.

People who are protecting their ego and their livelihood refuse to acknowledge this suppression and instead rely on the fallacy of ridicule to silence those who want to support the movers and shakers of this world trying to make the world better through technology.

I don't think the ridicule is funny. It think it's disgusting.

reply to post by Spiratio

Did you also write the script for the Rockwell turbo encabulator video?

Is there any way to simplify it for us lay people who don't fully understand all of Rodin's terminology?

For example, how does what you said power the "Flux thruster atom pulsar" that Rodin talks about? Or does it? Or are you like some other people Mary has accused of not even caring about Rodin's "Flux thruster atom pulsar"?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Is there any way to simplify it for us lay people who don't fully understand all of Rodin's terminology?

You can be assured that simplification is impossible due to the mindset of you "lay people."

reply to post by Mary Rose


so if science is a religion and the whoopee cushion is also a religion, is this a religious war?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mainstream science at present has become a religion....

I don't think the ridicule is funny. It think it's disgusting.

So we should find your ridicule of mainstream science disgusting? OK.

reply to post by BBalazs


No it's a war over how to progress into a new paradigm so that humanity can make use of what Mother Nature allows.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . war . . .

Who has ideas of how peace can be achieved so that the war can turn into a constructive discussion?

reply to post by Mary Rose

well symbolic systems such as markos are not unique. i can come up with 10 such systems in a week.
they are also not without merit. new viewpoints are always important to humanity endeavor to rule our galaxy
however were marko serious about his discoveries he would:
1) take a college course in physics OR
2) lay down the foundations of a new physics, one that is observable, recordable and useable.
he had enough time to do either or both.
btw, I am critical also of certain scientific developments, and I am of the opinion that there are some dead ends in physics being persued at this current moment in time.
that being said, it is still a model based on observation and fact (Most of it anyway).
however, I put all this down (dead ends and such) also to religion, egos, and the addiction to adventure (that makes many loose their way) not suppression.
i think we would all like an atom fluxer eon thruster or whatever.
i think we would all welcome free energy.
we all know it works very well in theory (whatever the theory may be), so NOW the time has come to show the results!
as we are up to the ceiling with theories.
if there are NO results, lets keep it within the realms of religious fantasmagoria is my opinion.
you now, there is nothing more powerful, then an idea whose time has come.
it cannot, and will not be stopped.
however, marks idea is not even an idea, it is just wishful thinking, based on his beliefs.
i can agree that I would love to have all those things that marko lists, now show me the proof!
don't really show me the proof because I have read through this thread, and no such proof exists.

Originally posted by BBalazs
. . . to rule our galaxy

That makes me cringe. Sounds like empire building. That's what we've got with the powers that be today. It's sickening.

Originally posted by BBalazs
however were marko serious about his discoveries he would:
1) take a college course in physics OR
2) lay down the foundations of a new physics, one that is observable, recordable and useable.
he had enough time to do either or both.

If he were to spend his time learning mainstream physics he would be just another mainstream scientist doing the same thing that's getting us nowhere.

Rodin's role is to teach. It is up to engineers and entrepreneurs to take his instructions and manifest them into products.

Originally posted by BBalazs
. . . not suppression.

Then I believe it's clear you have not done your homework. I could spend time spoon-feeding you with links but I don't care to do that.

Originally posted by BBalazs
. . . now show me the proof!

Who do you think you are?

Stand back with your arms folded and demand to be shown.

Do it yourself. The proof is in investigating what's on the record, should you choose to make use of it, and connecting the dots.

reply to post by Mary Rose

good point.
rodins aim is to teach.
science aim is to know, understand and use.
you made my point for me.
i have no problem is him teaching.

as for suppressed technology. well yes, sure, why not.
for example it is pretty clear, that engines can be more effective. you could call that suppressed technology.
it aint suppressed by science though, but corporations and such.
but this is not it.

my advice: you must choose your fights carefully if you are to achieve something.
marko is a dead horse.
demanding proof, is the only way to go, unless you WANT to believe EVERYTHING.
Or perhaps you choose to PRE-JUDGE what you believe and what you will not from the sea of superstition and religion?
thats fine also, but then don't get upset, if people don't believe you, or demand proof.
for if you have no proof your word is just as good as the next ones.
appealing to god, is not proof.
plus its a shame he never shows.
just my opinion.


also, I think this thread did an excellent job of investigating this alleged suppressed technology. I don't think you can say, they didn't examine each and every claim, as it arose seriously, and in depth. In many cases more then those who conjured up these claims. It is my understanding based on this, that they do have a very open mind, and would also welcome the aeon thruster and such into their lives. My hats of to art and buddhasystem! Respect!

Regarding the fact that Rodin talks about God in his papers: I am of the opinion that God does not have a religion, so a debate of religion vs. science is irrelevant.

I call God an "it" and I think the word "God" in Rodin's papers is referring to an "it" - in other words, how does it work? The universe/multiverse, that is.

The word "God" is not inappropriate on a science thread, because God doesn't have a religion, and how the universe works is what science is all about.

reply to post by Mary Rose

so he figured out how the universe works?
good for him!
we all have, we all have our personal beliefs.
its just that I don't call mine science.

reply to post by BBalazs


Rodin has endorsers, all of whom have been ridiculed ignorantly on this thread. Free energy technology has been suppressed. There is more to Rodin than imagination and intuition about the cosmos.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I call God an "it" and I think the word "God" in Rodin's papers is referring to an "it" - in other words, how does it work? The universe/multiverse, that is.

By referring to God as "it" you seem to be discounting the ancient wisdom of polytheism:

secure.wikimedia.org...

Polytheism was the typical form of religion during the Bronze Age and Iron Age, up to the Axial Age

I thought you liked ancient wisdom?

And while many have adopted monotheism, it's hardly universal even today:

www.polytheism.net...

Polytheism - Modern World
Polytheism still represents much of the world today. Except for the monotheistic (belief in one God) religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, most of the world's religions are overwhelmingly polytheistic. Polytheism characterizes the beliefs of Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism in the East, and also contemporary tribal religions in Africa and the Americas. These religions are widely practiced throughout the world and remain very popular in their ancestral areas.

Some polytheistic beliefs are also popular in today's Western Civilization. This appears to be a result of increased immigration of Eastern cultures and the mainstream popularity of New Age pluralism.

Some religions don't necessarily even have a deity, for example I'm not sure the Jedi Religion worships a deity, or at least it's not my understanding that "the force" is a deity.

Science doesn't claim to be able to disprove either the monotheistic nor the polytheistic religions, or even the Jedi religion, because to the extent the claims are "supernatural", the claims are outside the scope of science which so far hasn't measured the "supernatural" that I'm aware of. And this is why religion and science don't necessarily conflict with each other: because religion is outside the scope of science, and not just your monotheistic religion, but all supernatural religions.

This is why the word "religion" seems more appropriate than "God" or "it": The use of "God" or "it" does not encompass the wide variety of religious beliefs, some of which may have many deities, or even no deities at all.

The word "God" is not inappropriate on a science thread, because God doesn't have a religion, and how the universe works is what science is all about.

Is it inappropriate to mention religion in a science thread? It's OK to mention it to explain what science can and can't do.

If it can be measured, it's within the scope of science.

If it can't be measured, it's not.

So, can what you call "it" be measured? Can the polytheists' "them" be measured? Can the Jedis' "the force" be measured"?

may I add that speaking in strict terms neither Buddhism, nor Confucianism has a god.
faithresource.org...
faithresource.org...
in jainism it is:
God is: the pure soul attributes of infinite knowledge, infinite perception, infinite will power, and infinite happiness. Every soul possesses these inherent attributes. Eternal peace and happiness exist in ones’ own true nature. Man must strive hard to realize it.


I just quote the above, as it should be noted and taken down, imo.

but off course, they also don't have a whoopee cushion:-/

Originally posted by BBalazs
. . . but off course, they also don't have a whoopee cushion:-/

Too bad. You couldn't resist.

Just when I thought maybe you were going to offer a constructive post that might add some insight into where Rodin and others like him are coming from and what they're trying to contribute to society.

Oh well.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by BBalazs

 

Rodin has endorsers, all of whom have been ridiculed ignorantly on this thread.

Oh, that tired, greasy trump card, so rough around the edges. Well you see none of the "endorsers" are trustworthy, as the only one that seemed to have business and IT background essentially disowned Rodin.

What's more important, though, is that none of the "endorsers" provided any concrete additional argument or quantitative support. Just the usual hand waving and visions of grandeur. Grand Unified Theory. Flux Thruster Atom Pulsar. My Hovercraft us Full of Eels.