"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You can see the direction of the bands is different in different locations in this photo. What makes your video interesting is the two different directions appear at the same place. If this is so, it could be an effect of the wind blowing in two different directions just above and below the cloud layer, which could produce this effect. Another possibility is that the two directions of bands could actually be at different altitudes, but I can't really tell if that's so from the small amount of video.

Now, what is it that you consider evidence of electromagnetic fields in that video, given we can explain what we see with waves from fluid mechanics rather than waves from electromagnetic fields?

Firstly.. I would like you to know that my words aren't directed at you in assumption that your a drug addict - not that I am judging addicts either..no. I was simply stating my opinion regarding the pursuit of enlightenment and knowledge as a synergy of both the fields of study/experience.

Second my reason for stating that the video is a result of interference patterns produced by the earth's EMF is primarily due to my own personal experience on that particular day, which is quite beyond capacity to articulate on this thread and is a fairly of topic process. The notion I pose however is partially to do with the notion that clouds are in some sense a form of moisture - evaporated water - and water has the capacity to be influenced by electromagnetic fields such as is shown in cymatics and Masru Emotes work...now ignore the fact that Emoto claims his work is proof of consciousness's interaction with water and simply view it from the perspective of fields influencing the particles of moisture, and therein lies the scientific answer to the reason for my statement.

Originally posted by Spiratio
simply view it from the perspective of fields influencing the particles of moisture, and therein lies the scientific answer to the reason for my statement.

Of course EM fields interact with water/moisture. That's how microwave ovens work.

But this fact presents no evidence why the spacing of the bands of undulatus clouds would be observed as shown in your video, whereas fluid dynamics like wind blowing does explain the undulatus spacing. In fact the varying atmospheric density at various altitudes has been shown to be a factor in different undulatus spacing at different altitudes, which is further evidence it's fluid dynamics at work.

So unless you have some measurements of electromagnetic fields showing how they have been correlated with those clouds (what frequency of electromagnetic radiation are you talking about anyway?), I agree that your personal experience that day is probably off topic and wouldn't support your argument, and so your argument is really unsupported to anyone else in the world.

Originally posted by Spiratio
I can say I've done my share of both paths and synergised them.

You did? Then let me repeat my question regarding your exposition of the "flux thruster atom pulsar".
You see, I'm not clear about your explanation and would like to know the following:
a) what's Vacuum Domain?
b) what's an atoms torus field?
c) how can a field "flux"?
d) what is "thrust of energy"
e) how can a thrust be fluxed?

TIA.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
TIA.

What does that stand for?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
TIA.

What does that stand for?

"Thanks In Advance"

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
I can say I've done my share of both paths and synergised them.

You did? Then let me repeat my question regarding your exposition of the "flux thruster atom pulsar".
You see, I'm not clear about your explanation and would like to know the following:
a) what's Vacuum Domain?
b) what's an atoms torus field?
c) how can a field "flux"?
d) what is "thrust of energy"
e) how can a thrust be fluxed?

TIA.

a) a domain site that has been vacuumed
b) a dynamical toroidal motion of plasmatic and ERMag flux
c) show me something that's static, all things flux
d) ... energy. ....with force....= forceful thrust
e) how can't a thrust be fluxed?
f) eat me

i'm about to publish a book about ERmag-flux-Buddhas & subjects C-F, if you send me your address i'll send you a copy. chapter F is my favorite.

you're welcome

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
f) eat me

i'm about to publish a book about ERmag-flux-Buddhas & subjects C-F, if you send me your address i'll send you a copy. chapter F is my favorite.

You made a scatological reference to my person before, and now you graduated to this.

Which leads me to conclude that in addition to being an uneducated and pompous dimwit (can happen to anybody), you are extremely vulgar as well.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Thanks In Advance"

Oh!!

reply to post by metalshredmetal






Thanks! I needed that!!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . you are extremely vulgar as well.

From one who wrote the book on vulgar.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
f) eat me

i'm about to publish a book about ERmag-flux-Buddhas & subjects C-F, if you send me your address i'll send you a copy. chapter F is my favorite.

You made a scatological reference to my person before, and now you graduated to this.

Which leads me to conclude that in addition to being an uneducated and pompous dimwit (can happen to anybody), you are extremely vulgar as well.

isn't this what you want? i'm only following your lead...you're denial of all things Rodin & torus leads me to the denial of all things buddha.

as mary rose said before....you have firmly and obviously taken the position of anti-Rodin. so make your own thread dedicated to "Rodin lies", because "Rodin lies" are not relevant to the discussion of "Vortex Based Mathematics".

so far you've shown you have no purpose but to dis-prove Vortex Based Mathematics...am I wrong?

you have no purpose in this thread that is dedicated to Votex Based Mathematics. you do not participate in constructive discussion of Vortex Based Mathematics. (constructive being where both parties leave satisfied with their information.) you mock and insult Rodin & this thread constantly, so I follow by example...am I not allowed to mock you? if not, then you mustn't mock Rodin. this is called the Golden Rule, ever heard of it?

my answers all came from the bottom of my heart, now, if you'd just give me your address then i can send you my new book: "Why Vortex Based Mathematics are just super cool and totally destroy the BuddhaSystem Theory".

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you mock and insult Rodin & this thread constantly, so I follow by example...

All right, then I'll follow yours and ask that Rodin eats a hearty serving of your excrement (which you so generously offered a few pages ago). I'm sure you've sampled that dish and are in fact full of it.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
. . . you mock and insult Rodin & this thread constantly . . .

Yes, this is the problem.

It is one thing to disagree respectfully. But it is entirely unacceptable to use ridicule as a debate tactic.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Do you read links....

As I stated I do not use the words that rodin uses but if you read the trail of links I have left, you should find ample info that Implies what I stated as my assumption of what it implies, in line with metalshredmetal's brief run down of what those terms mean... A teenager could give you a description of what those terms mean, maybe not what they imply in context but at least what they mean. Given you know the context of this thread please at least show a bit of initiative on your own part to display an effort to understanding rather than regurgitating the same old pattern i.e. demanding that others explain their words. Its really not that hard to pick up/search a online dictionary and read what each word means and then apply it in context.

If you aren't willing to do this then understanding this field is not your foremost reason for being here and requesting others to provide indepth information. As such I see no reason why anyone should serve your demands, if you want to learn... teach yourself, its what I did.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Spiratio
simply view it from the perspective of fields influencing the particles of moisture, and therein lies the scientific answer to the reason for my statement.

Of course EM fields interact with water/moisture. That's how microwave ovens work.

But this fact presents no evidence why the spacing of the bands of undulatus clouds would be observed as shown in your video, whereas fluid dynamics like wind blowing does explain the undulatus spacing. In fact the varying atmospheric density at various altitudes has been shown to be a factor in different undulatus spacing at different altitudes, which is further evidence it's fluid dynamics at work.

So unless you have some measurements of electromagnetic fields showing how they have been correlated with those clouds (what frequency of electromagnetic radiation are you talking about anyway?), I agree that your personal experience that day is probably off topic and wouldn't support your argument, and so your argument is really unsupported to anyone else in the world.

I didn't say I was trying to prove anything...did I? I was merely offering food for thought with some substantial evidence - not irrefutable evidence. As you said yourself there is an interesting factor to the way the clouds converge, I was told it's similar to the double slit experiment, so I looked up the DS experiment and it turns out this is very similar pattern obviously caused by wavelike properties. According to mainstream science wind does not typically follow induction to fields it is caused by various degrees of air temperatures. However clouds being atmospheric deposits of evaporated moisture are much more likely candidates for what I have stated as my opinion.

Since it got your mind ticking as to their uncanny arrangements then the post served what it's purpose was - to evoke pondering

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you do not participate in constructive discussion of Vortex Based Mathematics.

Separating fact from fiction is always a constructive discussion.

What facts have been established? That the only endorser with a somewhat credible background in an unrelated field has rescinded his endorsement?

There have been no facts established about Rodin's claims, other than he has a coil and based on the leakage we discussed earlier in the thread, it's not a particularly good coil for any commercial applications that I know of. And it's certainly never been demonstrated that there's a black hole in the middle of the coil, nor have any of Rodin's other wild claims been demonstrated to be true. So your failure to demonstrate that anything Rodin says is true means that you, too, have not participated in any constructive discussion of Vortex Based Mathematics.

If this is some kind or religion as one participant in the discussion suggested, Where beliefs rule and there are no facts, then fine, call it the Rodin religion. But in that case, it shouldn't be called mathematics.

Originally posted by Spiratio
A teenager could give you a description of what those terms mean, maybe not what they imply in context but at least what they mean.

Maybe a teenager can, I don't know, but you don't seem to be capable of doing that. I asked some very straightforward questions about that strange phrase of yours, and all you can do is to say "it's so easy a teenager can do it"?

So again,
a) what's Vacuum Domain?

...it's a very unusual term, and may have different meanings. So, what did you mean here?

b) what's an atoms torus field?

...and what kind of field is it? Why is it torus? What exactly sort of atom do you imply?

c) how can a field "flux"?

...ditto. The verb flux is not compatible with "field", because it implies that the "field" liquifies "thrust"

That's just a stellar example of absolute verbal and mental garbage.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Spiratio
simply view it from the perspective of fields influencing the particles of moisture, and therein lies the scientific answer to the reason for my statement.

Of course EM fields interact with water/moisture. That's how microwave ovens work.

But this fact presents no evidence why the spacing of the bands of undulatus clouds would be observed as shown in your video, whereas fluid dynamics like wind blowing does explain the undulatus spacing. In fact the varying atmospheric density at various altitudes has been shown to be a factor in different undulatus spacing at different altitudes, which is further evidence it's fluid dynamics at work.

So unless you have some measurements of electromagnetic fields showing how they have been correlated with those clouds (what frequency of electromagnetic radiation are you talking about anyway?), I agree that your personal experience that day is probably off topic and wouldn't support your argument, and so your argument is really unsupported to anyone else in the world.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
I can say I've done my share of both paths and synergised them.

You did? Then let me repeat my question regarding your exposition of the "flux thruster atom pulsar".
You see, I'm not clear about your explanation and would like to know the following:
a) what's Vacuum Domain?
b) what's an atoms torus field?
c) how can a field "flux"?
d) what is "thrust of energy"
e) how can a thrust be fluxed?

TIA.

With your orbital framework of our solar system there's no reason to enter into explanations for a-c. In regards to d and e... Have you ever been double-bounced on a trampoline?

reply to post by Spiratio

Thus their tangible levels of reality do not enmesh they are separated.

Great descriptive post.