It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So is this now the "paste artwork here with no explanation" thread?
Originally posted by Americanist
Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So is this now the "paste artwork here with no explanation" thread?
Originally posted by Americanist
If so, my response is "pretty".
If it's some lame attempt to suggest that all those pictures are related in cause rather than appearance, my response is, the causes of those pictures can be explained and they are not all the same.
Like the science community tries to explain to professor Don Scott: "just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it has the same or even similar causes". Don Scott is the guy who says he thinks the grand canyon was formed by lightning because it looks like a lightning pattern, which is the kind of muddled thinking that was more than likely used to assemble that collage, unless it's just artwork.
Originally posted by squandered
I agree.
It also beggars the questions as to whose purpose it is to stifle debate.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.
Combined with illusions of grandeur on Rodin's part, and his set of silly promises to save mankind and travel "anywhere in the Universe", this provides a natural setting for ridicule and not much else.
Originally posted by Spiratio
Dude!!! I posted links...read them for goodness sake.
From the multidimensional perspective it can be said that life exists in higher integers of a given planetary toroid field, some of which are not that much higher than everyday reality but still beyond the everyday perception. Like two TV/radio channels which are close enough that they overlap slightly during the phase transition whilst tuning, where each have their data partially received and broadcast simultaneously as tho superimposed. Yet from their mean band of emanation they are experienced as separate from one another without interference. This analogy is to highlight the overlapping nature of each proceeding integer in a torus fields overall spectrum, in the context that on one level (integer) a planet may be barren and uninhabited whereas on another it may be teeming with life. This entails that the level teeming with life must have an EMF which likewise correlates with the same relative level of the suns toroid, thereby maintaining the orbit and spin of the planet in the lower base physical level by proxy of the overlapping nature of its toroids higher integers.
Originally posted by squandered
If you may recall, I felt I could provide answers for that based on an intuitive inkling. The thing is, I don't care.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by squandered
If you may recall, I felt I could provide answers for that based on an intuitive inkling. The thing is, I don't care.
Interesting! First you complain about the absence of real "debate", then proceed to say that anyhow you don't care to express yourself. Why did you lament the non-existence of the debate in the first place, if you don't care?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Spiratio
Dude!!! I posted links...read them for goodness sake.
You primarily posted a link to your own thread.
In particular, there we find:
From the multidimensional perspective it can be said that life exists in higher integers of a given planetary toroid field, some of which are not that much higher than everyday reality but still beyond the everyday perception. Like two TV/radio channels which are close enough that they overlap slightly during the phase transition whilst tuning, where each have their data partially received and broadcast simultaneously as tho superimposed. Yet from their mean band of emanation they are experienced as separate from one another without interference. This analogy is to highlight the overlapping nature of each proceeding integer in a torus fields overall spectrum, in the context that on one level (integer) a planet may be barren and uninhabited whereas on another it may be teeming with life. This entails that the level teeming with life must have an EMF which likewise correlates with the same relative level of the suns toroid, thereby maintaining the orbit and spin of the planet in the lower base physical level by proxy of the overlapping nature of its toroids higher integers.
stuff to ignore:
" here is a cheap bit of mental masturbation"
Originally posted by squandered
Scientists were never the forerunners of science.
The author intends to prove what? That the shape of a manmade crop circle and the standing waves in cymatics have the same cause?
Originally posted by squandered
The author fully intends to prove that.
There are numerous vortices, such as the one in my sink. Saying they are everywhere may be stretching it. Most relevant to this topic, nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.
Originally posted by squandered
It doesn't strike me as important except there are vortex' everywhere.
Yes, we all have limited brain function, but some brains are more limited than others.
We are limited to brain function, surrounded by a swirling chaos!
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by squandered
Scientists were never the forerunners of science.
Cool. And drivers were never forerunners of the Grand Prix, and dentists were never forerunners of root canal. Astronomers were never at the cutting edge of the art of observing celestial objects, and surgeons would have never come up with the idea of bypass. Such advanced activities are best left to babbling idiots. They are the real movers and shakers.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The author intends to prove what? That the shape of a manmade crop circle and the standing waves in cymatics have the same cause?
Originally posted by squandered
The author fully intends to prove that.
There are numerous vortices, such as the one in my sink. Saying they are everywhere may be stretching it. Most relevant to this topic, nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.
Originally posted by squandered
It doesn't strike me as important except there are vortex' everywhere.
Yes, we all have limited brain function, but some brains are more limited than others.
We are limited to brain function, surrounded by a swirling chaos!
Well since we have well over 150 pages of people asking for one shred of proof that anything Rodin says is true, and not one shred of proof has been provided, I'd say that's relevant.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.
So what??
Saying that 9 doesn't really equal 18 isn't nitpicking. If I said that 9.000001 doesn't exactly equal 9, while it may be true, I'd call that nitpicking. But 18 isn't even close to 9.
The OP of this thread expresses fascination with a topic. Your immediate contribution was to shoot down that fascination and to nitpick over the word "equals." You've been nitpicking consistently ever since.
I'm fascinated by many things in the natural world, which is one of the reasons I studied science, to learn more about it.
Are you ever fascinated by anything? Or do you just rely on picking things apart to get your jollies?