"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Beebs


I also think Rodin might be on to something here . But as Rodin himself says , others have to find the applications of this model .

I have also seen the video where the steel ball vibrates like crazy and I am also wondering how is this possible .

That ball sure looks like sitting on an energy fountain ( emanation perhaps ?) , similar to water fountain .

reply to post by Bobathon

So all we need now is:
1. which part do you think cannot be explained by the 'conventional' laws of physics?
2. and how is it specifically explained by this guy's theories?

Or, alternatively, and I would say equally valid:
3. which part do you think can be specifically explained in a more elegant way by this guy's theories than by the 'conventional' laws of physics?

I would have thought the ball was now in your court.

I am exhausted. You are a protagonist for a stance, the stance which says there is nothing there which cannot be explained by conventional laws.

I am the protagonist for a more complete model of the atom, that being a toroid wave structure of space.

I would say, that the effects from the Rodin coil are something like:

The amplification of electro-magnetic frequencies or aether from ZPE in space, which is rotating and can rotate macro-scale objects such as a turbine. It is the amplification of the perpetual motion of space itself, it is sympathetically resonating with the frequencies below the Planck scale, allowing them to propagate macroscopically. That is what I would say as of right now, but of course it could take years to refine these concepts.

There is a diagram about two-thirds of the way down on this page(as well as math for ya ):

oriharu.net...

What I am interested in, is your theoretical explanation of the same phenomenon from the 'convention'.

reply to post by beebs


I saw all videos. I still can't see what it can do that can't be explained. Where does the aether come in, and how is it perpetual motion?

EDIT: Finally you show some math. Thank you. Looks like I have reading to do.

EDIT 2: Lol, the author seems to hate relativity for his pet theory, which has been experimentally confirmed. Crank. Pass.

reply to post by beebs

What I see is a coil producing a magnetic field, which is normal, and causing a magnetic object to rotate, which is very nice but also pretty normal. Electric motors, developed using the 'conventional' laws of physics, have been making use of exactly the same phenomenon for rather a long time, no?

When the source is removed, it continues to rotate.

Why? Because all rotating objects continue to rotate when the power is removed. Think spinning tops, roundabouts in a playground, spinning coins, flywheels.

How long do they continue to rotate for? Until all the rotational energy has been drained away by friction or other resistive forces. What is the friction acting between a glass bowl and a metal ball that's spinning so fast it barely touches the sides of the bowl? It will be very low. Has the ball been made to spin by the magnet a lot faster than you could spin it with your fingers? Of course. So will it keep spinning for longer than a spinning ball on a table? Of course. What, even two or three times as long? Of course.

But it looks like it's not slowing down for most of that time! You can't tell that it's slowing down. All you see is the rate of bouncing on the sides, which does stay the same, and gives the illusion that it's still being powered. It's a rapidly-spinning ball gradually slowing down under friction.

If you've never seen a flywheel that will keep spinning for a quarter of an hour (or several hours, or even much much longer) I suggest you go to a science museum and have a look at one. I suspect 1 minute and 20 seconds won't seem so impressive after that.

Originally posted by Bobathon
If you've never seen a flywheel that will keep spinning for a quarter of an hour (or several hours, or even much much longer) I suggest you go to a science museum and have a look at one. I suspect 1 minute and 20 seconds won't seem so impressive after that.

I don't hold my breath waiting for Beebs to go to a science museum or God forbid read a textbook, but anyhow, conventional flywheels can maintain rotation for many hours:
en.wikipedia.org...

An additional limitation for some flywheel types is energy storage time. Flywheel energy storage systems using mechanical bearings can lose 20% to 50% of their energy in 2 hours

...20% of energy loss in 2 hrs just on steel ball bearings is pretty amazing. It will spin for days until it finally dissipates all its energy.

reply to post by Bobathon


And what about the action at a distance in the other video? Or the amount of friction the one guy had to put on the spinning magnet in order for it to stop? I think he mentioned how much was going into the coil, I think his point was that he was putting more of a load on the magnet than should be necessary, given the amount of input.

Yes, all of what you have mentioned is very obvious, I just think there is a bit more to his coil because of its construction.

The only reason I cling to that belief, is because of Tesla, Keely, Leedskalnin, Wolff, Mesmer, etc.

reply to post by beebs


What action at a distance? Didn't you see the ferroliquid become non-magnetized when moved from the center in the other videos?

At most it's just a powerful electromagnet creating torque on another magnet. Where does this mysterious aether come into play? I hate to break it to you (well, not really) but I think all the people you are mentioning come from a time when the theory electromagnetism wasn't well developed. Ergo, they were probably wrong, especially about aether.

Originally posted by beebs
I am exhausted.

I'm not surprised. Thought process can be hard.

You are a protagonist for a stance, the stance which says there is nothing there which cannot be explained by conventional laws.

In what you showed so far, that is obviously the case, and that's the scope of this particular sub-thread, so don't change gears. And, there was no manifestation of "aether" in any of these videos.

Originally posted by beebs
There is a diagram about two-thirds of the way down on this page(as well as math for ya

):

oriharu.net...

What I am interested in, is your theoretical explanation of the same phenomenon from the 'convention'.

My first question is, what phenomenon?

I looked at the math a little bit and have a second question for you. Table 8.1-1, the first thing listed is electric charge explained by equation 10:

Electric charge e, with a value of 1.6029E-19 kg/sec, is the local divergence of the aetheric field and is related to u0 and e0 as follows:

and again in the table it says the units are kilograms per second or kg/sec
Because it's listed twice the same way, once in the text and once in the table, it seems unlikely to be a typo.

According to Wiki that's almost the same number given for elementary charge in coulombs:

en.wikipedia.org...

The elementary charge is 1.602176487×10^−19 C

Where the definition of a coulomb is

The coulomb (symbol: C) is the SI derived unit of electric charge, transported by a steady current of one ampere in one second.

So in other words, to write out the units related to seconds, the electric charge would be expressed as 1.602176487×10^−19 A*s (Amperes times seconds).

So my second and third questions are:
2. Is the "elemental charge" in table 8.1-1 of 1.6029E-19 kg/sec supposed to be the same thing that Wiki calls "elementary charge" of 1.602176487×10^−19 Ampere-seconds?
3. If not, is it just coincidence that the names and values are nearly identical? And if so, why are the units expressed as kilograms per second, instead of Amperes times seconds? Are these units supposed to be equivalent? And if so, how is this equivalency established? The equivalency seems to lead to a relationship such as 1 ampere equals 1 kilogram per second squared and this is the first time I've seen such a claim.

I would also like to observe that the author lists 14 sources at the bottom of that link, however he fails to make any references to which sources are used for which part of his writing, including the failure to cite which of the 14 sources, if any, is the source for table 8.1-1. If I knew which one of the 14 sources it was there might be further explanation there. And while we can focus on the first item in the table, I must say that 4 of the 6 items are expressed in units unfamiliar to me. Only the Rydberg constant with units of m^-1 and frequency with units of Hz use units familiar to me, the other units are not what I'm used to seeing for volts, resistance, and Planck's constant (assuming that by "Plank's constant" he's actually referring to "Planck's constant")

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, there is so much cr@p on that page I don't know where to begin. For starters, the author doesn't know how to spell "toroid".

I feel stupid for not noticing those things.

In my defense I skimmed over it though.

reply to post by 547000

What action at a distance? Didn't you see the ferroliquid become non-magnetized when moved from the center in the other videos?

At most it's just a powerful electromagnet creating torque on another magnet. Where does this mysterious aether come into play? I hate to break it to you (well, not really) but I think all the people you are mentioning come from a time when the theory electromagnetism wasn't well developed. Ergo, they were probably wrong, especially about aether.

No, the other video where he takes the glass cup with the magnet in it about 15 feet away... maybe I forgot to post it.

And no, Keely and Tesla were aether physicists, and much more competent at engineering with their models than we are today. And again, we just renamed the aether ZPE, or vacuum density, etc. with a much more precise description. Same function.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I looked at the math a little bit and have a second question for you. Table 8.1-1, the first thing listed is electric charge explained by equation 10:

Electric charge e, with a value of 1.6029E-19 kg/sec, is the local divergence of the aetheric field and is related to u0 and e0 as follows:
and again in the table it says the units are kilograms per second or kg/sec
Because it's listed twice the same way, once in the text and once in the table, it seems unlikely to be a typo.

According to Wiki that's almost the same number given for elementary charge in coulombs:

en.wikipedia.org...

The elementary charge is 1.602176487×10^−19 C
Where the definition of a coulomb is

The coulomb (symbol: C) is the SI derived unit of electric charge, transported by a steady current of one ampere in one second.
So in other words, to write out the units related to seconds, the electric charge would be expressed as 1.602176487×10^−19 A*s (Amperes times seconds).

So my second and third questions are:
2. Is the "elemental charge" in table 8.1-1 of 1.6029E-19 kg/sec supposed to be the same thing that Wiki calls "elementary charge" of 1.602176487×10^−19 Ampere-seconds?
3. If not, is it just coincidence that the names and values are nearly identical? And if so, why are the units expressed as kilograms per second, instead of Amperes times seconds? Are these units supposed to be equivalent? And if so, how is this equivalency established? The equivalency seems to lead to a relationship such as 1 ampere equals 1 kilogram per second squared and this is the first time I've seen such a claim.

I would also like to observe that the author lists 14 sources at the bottom of that link, however he fails to make any references to which sources are used for which part of his writing, including the failure to cite which of the 14 sources, if any, is the source for table 8.1-1. If I knew which one of the 14 sources it was there might be further explanation there. And while we can focus on the first item in the table, I must say that 4 of the 6 items are expressed in units unfamiliar to me. Only the Rydberg constant with units of m^-1 and frequency with units of Hz use units familiar to me, the other units are not what I'm used to seeing for volts, resistance, and Planck's constant (assuming that by "Plank's constant" he's actually referring to "Planck's constant")

I don't know. Why are you asking me? Those are questions which should obviously not be addressed to me, but instead you math guys.

(AHA! You got me! )

reply to post by beebs


Beebs, did you read the posts here? The ball was already spinning at a high rate, when it was removed, and it takes a long time to dissipate rotational energy in a low friction system.

reply to post by beebs


Sounds like Tesla wankery to me. People try to justify the nuttiest things in his name, and by the only authority that he was smart. But even smart people are wrong at some things. Aether is one of them.

rationalwiki.org...

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

And what about the action at a distance in the other video?

Be specific, Beebs, otherwise I don't know what you mean. I haven't seen any so far. I discussed the ball bouncing in the glass bowl and giving the illusion of still being powered by something. What you see is a ball spinning and bouncing in a bowl, which is what you'd expect to see if you put a ball that is spinning and bouncing in a bowl. It takes some time to slow its rotation - you don't see that.

The bouncing and rattling carries on at the same rate even when the ball slows its rotation - that's what gives the illusion of it being powered at a distance.

Or the amount of friction the one guy had to put on the spinning magnet in order for it to stop? I think he mentioned how much was going into the coil, I think his point was that he was putting more of a load on the magnet than should be necessary, given the amount of input.

The coil is supplying a torque to the magnet. To slow the magnet's spinning, he'll have to apply enough friction to exceed that torque. He wasn't even measuring the friction he was providing, so I don't see how he could make that claim.

If it just looks more than you'd expect, which is more likely - that your expectations are a bit skew, or that laws of physics that no scientist can find flaws with have been altered by a coiled wire?

Yes, all of what you have mentioned is very obvious, I just think there is a bit more to his coil because of its construction.

The only reason I cling to that belief, is because of Tesla, Keely, Leedskalnin, Wolff, Mesmer, etc.

Ok, but you know what that means, don't you... you'll be asked to point to whatever it is that you think they've said that specifically leads you to believe that "there's a bit more to his coil", and we can look into that...

Originally posted by beebs
I don't know. Why are you asking me? Those are questions which should obviously not be addressed to me, but instead you math guys.

Why am I asking you? Because you're the one who posted the link.

I thought you were posting the link as a means to support your argument. Did I misunderstand?

I think the math guys would all agree that the link is full of cr@p, buddhasystem already observed that.

But I was giving you a chance to defend it in case I misunderstood something.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

 

Arb, there is so much cr@p on that page I don't know where to begin. For starters, the author doesn't know how to spell "toroid".

Yes, I noticed that.

I read it to mean toro, from the latin taurus, meaning bull.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000

 

I guess I must have gotten bored of seeing some guy who can't explain a damn thing after 11 parts or so and decided to stop watching.

Yeah, thats unfortunate. He is really terrible at explaining himself. I again refer you to the context which will make it easier to understand.

Originally posted by beebs
I am sorry that I think Rodin is best explained through Keely, because Rodin does a crap job at it.

Beebs, Numerous times in this thread you keep making excuses for Rodin's lack of ability to communicate, and several times you referred to Keely, so I finally took the Keely bait.
I started researching the claims of Keely. What I found is the same symptom of making grandiose claims that were never shown to have any connection to reality, that we see with Rodin's stuff. Here are some of the highlights of Keely's claims/life:
John E. W. Keely

...Bennett C. Wilson, who said that in 1863 he had entered into an agreement with Keely, who he had originally engaged to varnish furniture. The agreement was that Wilson was to find tools and materials and pay the expenses of inventions made by Keely, Keely agreeing that all inventions so made, and patents obtained, should be equally owned by him and Wilson. On 14 August 1869 Keely assigned a half ownership in what was referred to as the "Keely motor" to Wilson, who claimed that Keely had then assigned all rights and title to the invention later that same month in return for funds.

So presumably between 1863 and 1869 Keely received funding from Wilson and developed the Keely motor which he assigned at least half and possibly full rights to Wilson in 1869 in exchange for funds. (Please note that August 1869 was about 141 and a half years ago, I'll come back to this).

Next we look at his subsequent actions to apparently defraud investors and benefactors of huge sums of money, which I'll show as stated in records and court documents of the time and then express the same amounts in approximations of today's dollars adjusted for inflation, in parentheses (Using an 1881 rate to adjust for inflation, since the expenses were between 1872-1889 so 1881 is roughly in the middle).

In 1872.... the Keely Motor Company was formed in New York, with a capital of $5,000,000.Text

(Inflation adjusted this would be roughly $110 million today). Note that investors were apparently not aware that Wilson claimed and apparently proved to the court that Keely had already assigned rights to the Keely motor to Wilson three years earlier, in 1869. Ultimately Keely was ordered by the court to allow professionals to examine the Keely motor he assigned to Wilson and the Keely motor he developed with the Keely motor company using investor funds, and Keely failed to comply with the court order and was jailed for contempt of court. The sordid story continues but let's skip to additional funds he managed to bilk with his claims:

On November 10, 1874, Keely gave a demonstration of an "etheric generator" to a small group of people in Philadelphia...the witnesses of the demonstration were so impressed that they formed a stock company, purchased patent rights for the six New England states, and paid $50,000 in cash for their share in the invention.

Another $1.1 million in today's dollars.

In 1881, a wealthy woman named Clara Jessup Bloomfield Moore gave Keely $100,000 plus a monthly salary of $250 (around $2.2 million and $5400/month in today's values for a total of about $3.3 million) .

She made an arrangement with Keely on 12 April 1890 to furnish him with an additional $2,000 ($44000) a month (totalling about $4.5 million) for his household and shop expenses and for instruments of research, which was to expire when he had gained sufficient control of his unknown force to enable him to resume his work under the direction of the management of the company upon a provisional engine. This arrived in December 1890, when Mrs Bloomfield Moore handed over to the Directors bills that had been presented since the expiration of Mr. Keely's contract with her.

(Parentheses showing approximate today's dollars added by me).

So for all these millions and millions of dollars, what did investors ever get from all of Keely's grandiose claims? They got ripped off. None of it was ever connected to the real world and when they tore apart his lab after his death they found hidden air lines that he was using to hoax people into thinking he had really invented something new when he was just using compressed air.

In fact a man named Zalinski tried his best to expose the fraud of using compressed air during one of Keely's demonstrations:

Zalinski later attended a demonstration at Keely's workshop in November, in place of Colonel John Hamilton. He later reported that he suggested to Keely that it would be a more complete test of his power if he would discharge a large reservoir which he showed his guests, and then recharge it using his generator. Keely declined to do this, on the grounds that it would take two hours - despite his many statements that he could generate force in a few seconds - and that the reservoir had been "carefully negatized". Keely also claimed to have achieved pressures of 50,000 psi, and that he had broken all his pressure gauges. When Zalinski produced a pressure gauge he had brought with him - capable of registering 10,000 psi - and offered it to Keely, saying "I would like to have you put it on, and break it for me", Keely was momentarily lost for words before saying, "I do not believe in pressure gauges, anyhow."

If you have two brain cells left in your head, that should spell fraud to you. Doesn't it? A guy who is selling investors inventions that operate on pressure and he says he doesn't believe in pressure gages? And refuses to demonstrate his device will do what he claims it can do? He's an obvious fraud, and while investors may have been a little greedy and delusional thinking his inventions might actually work as claimed, Zalinski's expose should have been a wake-up call for them and they eventually did file a lawsuit against Keely.

Keely died in 1898 and after his death, all the hidden air lines were discovered in his lab, so his hoaxing, trickery and defrauding claims should have died with him, though it makes a fascinating cautionary tale for potential investors of how they can be taken for huge sums of money through trickery and never end up with anything to show for it.

Rodin seems to be just babbling nonsense and as you have pointed out he can't even explain what the heck he's talking about clearly, but Keely through his trickery, fraud, and deceit, was lower than the slime on a snail's belly if you ask me. And this is the guy you want me to believe since he can explain it better than Rodin?

Wouldn't it be safer to assume that whatever Keely said was a lie and a total crock? I say this because I promised to come back to the 141 years since he developed the so called "Keely motor" which was never made into reality either by the time of his death in 1989 nor in 2011, 141 years later, because it, along with his other inventions are obviously (to most people) fraudulent:

The Keely Motor Hoax

Among the expedients resorted to in exploiting a scientific fraud, mystifying lingo is one of the commonest, and in this Mr. Keely was an adept. At this demonstration the machine, or so much of it as was then to be exhibited, was called a "vibratory-generator"; in a later demonstration it was a "hydro-pneumatic-pulsating-vacu-engine" and changes in nomenclature were being rung continually always vague, delightfully general, and suggesting unlimited possibilities.

That's an astute observation, we see plenty of nomenclature abuse by Rodin and Keely, and I might add by their supporters as well.

The inventor's funds began to run low, but his plausibility sufficed to keep him afloat and he so completely deluded his supporters, especially his most ardent one, Mrs. Bloomfield Moore, that he continued to hold their interest, and was kept on his feet financially. By 1890, however, the stockholders had become too weary (or wary) to be put off by evasions or tricks.

So his investors figured out he was full of cr@p by 1890, which means they were somewhat patient to give him rope for 18 years, but after 18 years they finally realized he was a fraud.

But here we are 141 years later, and you still haven't figured out what his investors figured out after 18 years of his nonsense claims?

I only know of one thing that Keely ever really proved: That people are too eager to believe nonsensical claims that have no connection to reality.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem

 

Arb, there is so much cr@p on that page I don't know where to begin. For starters, the author doesn't know how to spell "toroid".

Yes, I noticed that.

I read it to mean toro, from the latin taurus, meaning bull.

Bob

And I missed the proton part in the first reading. Jee. The proton is a torus??? Ouch.

Beebs, you posted links to some choice "taurus" here.