"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
once I explained that toroids can be elongated so that their inner axis stretches the distance of a laser beam, he ignores this theory and he cites the resultant "dot" upon a wall as evidence there is no toroidal field?

I didn't ignore the theory and provided more than just an image of a dot.

I explained how the beam from the laser pointer is a narrow cone that has a tendency to continue for infinity. The torus shape is finite because it has to loop back around to form the donut.

The cone shape extending from the laser pointer does not have to loop back around, so it can be essentially infinite.

Therefore even in a hypothetical proposition, these shapes are inconsistent with each other.

edit on 1-2-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Each toroid governed by a larger scale spanning further out than your limited view.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A voice of reason, integrity, and just plain common sense! A breath of fresh air

Of course! A person who peppers ATS with pearls of reason and integrity like "eat me!" and offers to mail boxes full of his excrement to unsuspecting members, and patently lacks any sort of knowledge of anything as it were -- who else can be called the paragon of expertise and virtue?

Then again, why am I not surprised? For you, Mary, like to quote people who call Einstein a moron, and refuse to do even most primitive reading in physics, and what's worse, to use your brain. For you, everything is a donut.

edit on 2-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

While you and your pet spaghetti lounge around half gone.

reply to post by Spiratio

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured.

The effect of dark matter most certainly has been measured:

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

If somebody attached a 2 ton trailer to your car and painted your back window black so you couldn't see in your rear view mirror, you might not be able to see what was making your car move so sluggishly when the light turned green, but you'd probably be able to tell something was there even if you didn't know what it was. In fact you could measure that the zero-to sixty time of your acceleration was taking twice as long, so unseen doesn't mean unmeasurable.

That's kind of how dark matter is...we know something is there and have measured it, we just don't know what it is yet.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
imagine if the length of that beam was the length of the middle of the Torus, which is like a wormhole that connects the north and south pole of the torus.

The square peg just doesn't fit into a round hole, but you're trying to pound it in anyway.

If there is nothing in the path of the beam from the laser pointer, it will continue traveling in a narrow cone shape for infinity. The main reason it won't do that in practice isn't because it has a toroidal field, it's because deep space has a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter and chances are most of the photons from the laser pointer will eventually interact with those and get scattered.

Also, here's a dot from a laser pointer on the wall:

laserpointerforums.com...

Close up of laser dot on wall through goggles. Distance is about 3m

Are you asking me to imagine that I see a hole in the middle? Because I'm not seeing one.

What shape does light travel in? Why don't you take a well rounded look...

Why has there been no response to this line of questioning and rebuttal? I'm awaiting his reply.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Spiratio

 

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured.

That's like saying wind doesn't exist.

reply to post by SoulVisions


A better question is what shape do we observe while light is traveling... I'm always listening for the answers too!

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Why has there been no response to this line of questioning and rebuttal? I'm awaiting his reply.

You're awaiting whose reply to what? I already stated that laser light has the shape of a narrow cone.

Need documentation? See figure 10.6:
www.cvilaser.com...

If you want a more specific answer you need to ask a more specific question.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Why has there been no response to this line of questioning and rebuttal? I'm awaiting his reply.

You're awaiting whose reply to what? I already stated that laser light has the shape of a narrow cone.

Need documentation? See figure 10.6:
www.cvilaser.com...

If you want a more specific answer you need to ask a more specific question.

It was directed towards metalshred. You're preaching to the choir with me regarding this.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Why has there been no response to this line of questioning and rebuttal? I'm awaiting his reply.

You're awaiting whose reply to what? I already stated that laser light has the shape of a narrow cone.

Need documentation? See figure 10.6:
www.cvilaser.com...

If you want a more specific answer you need to ask a more specific question.

So in citing this as your only reference, you concur that conventional light beams travel linearly?

Originally posted by Americanist
So in citing this as your only reference, you concur that conventional light beams travel linearly?

I don't know what you're getting at. I cited the reference and it says what it says.

In no way does it deny the solar eclipse observations which made Einstein famous.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
So in citing this as your only reference, you concur that conventional light beams travel linearly?

I don't know what you're getting at. I cited the reference and it says what it says.

In no way does it deny the solar eclipse observations which made Einstein famous.

I'll get at you later once you've done some more thinking...

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
So in citing this as your only reference, you concur that conventional light beams travel linearly?

I don't know what you're getting at. I cited the reference and it says what it says.

In no way does it deny the solar eclipse observations which made Einstein famous.

I'll get at you later once you've done some more thinking...

lol, that wasn't really fair. I guess it could be muddied a bit more when you account for gravity distortion, or the path taken around fun stuff like metamaterials. What are we talking about here again, lasers?

reply to post by SoulVisions

How so? Wind is observable and measurable.

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
That's like saying wind doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Spiratio
How so? Wind is observable and measurable.

lol... that was my point, Spiratio. We can't "see" wind, but we know that it's there and are able to measure it's effect. The same as the elusive "dark matter" that we can't "see." In time we'll know more, but for now, in this way, it's comparable to wind, gravity, and other "mysteries" that puzzled scientists/theorists of old.

reply to post by Americanist

I'll see your (apparently random?) piece of artwork and raise you another piece of artwork which isn't completely random:

reply to post by Americanist

Originally posted by Americanist
As soon as I saw the number map I realized the Universe is an assembly based on fractal patterns.

blogs.nature.com...

I want to save this file to my pc and I need a filename. How about this for a filename?
"I realized the universe is an asembly based on fractal patterns.jpg"

Do I need your permission to use that filename? If I can't have it, I think I'll just call it "everything's fractal.jpg", I don't think that's copyrighted yet.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


wow apparently not only is the observers effect hard to grasp for some.
they have now went on to bastardize fractals. this is obviously not referencing you.
this is a very sad state of affairs.
i protest in the name of madelbrot!
cool artwork, btw

reply to post by -PLB-


Please be considerate when you post and use the correct tags.

If I post outside text it doesn't mean that I, personally, am making statements.

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
That's like saying wind doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Spiratio
How so? Wind is observable and measurable.

lol... that was my point, Spiratio. We can't "see" wind, but we know that it's there and are able to measure it's effect. The same as the elusive "dark matter" that we can't "see." In time we'll know more, but for now, in this way, it's comparable to wind, gravity, and other "mysteries" that puzzled scientists/theorists of old.

No, i was pointing out that wind is measurable as well as observable. Dark matter is observable but not measurable...in both instances its known that the phenomena exist... so how does saying "that's like saying wind does't exist" prove any point I'm sorry but your logic baffles me.

Originally posted by Spiratio

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
That's like saying wind doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Spiratio
How so? Wind is observable and measurable.

lol... that was my point, Spiratio. We can't "see" wind, but we know that it's there and are able to measure it's effect. The same as the elusive "dark matter" that we can't "see." In time we'll know more, but for now, in this way, it's comparable to wind, gravity, and other "mysteries" that puzzled scientists/theorists of old.

No, i was pointing out that wind is measurable as well as observable. Dark matter is observable but not measurable...in both instances its known that the phenomena exist... so how does saying "that's like saying wind does't exist" prove any point I'm sorry but your logic baffles me.

Wow, I watch your responses on these threads. You looooooove to argue. You absolutely can not stand it if someone tells you that you are wrong, can you?

On topic? Yes, you can measure dark matter. We've spent millions doing it even. You're not only disagreeing with me on this, you're disagreeing with the entire modern science community if you take the time to investigate the issue. I wish you luck.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Another passage I find interesting is:

Without these emanations the universe would instantly become destitute and void because of the way that the Aetherons penetrate, animate, and impart mass to all matter, creating what Marko Rodin first called the underpinning geometry of the universe. In other words, Aetherons bestow upon every material thing both its form and function which is why the ABHA Torus can reveal the true free flight pathways of least resistance for any and all motion whether it is electrons through a wire or space craft entering an atmosphere. This is a highly significant discovery for instance to anyone interested in celestial navigation because standard approaches to mathematics are based on approximations of reality and are unable to reveal these angular and proportional relationships. Strictly speaking this means that mathematicians have been unable to find a way to accurately pinpoint a location in three-dimensional space and are always forced to incorporate cumbersome correcting calculations for spacecraft once they begin to approach their destinations.

"Standard approaches to mathematics are based on approximations of reality" makes me think of what Dale Pond said about today's scientists and the need to not confuse 1 and 2D with 3D.