"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
~ then again, "mainstream" science thought the Earth was flat for a good few hundred years....and they discredited and disrespected the "non-mainstream" scientists who proposed the Earth was round.

some scientists were even killed and had their lives ruined because of their beliefs in the "round Earth theory"...do you think that that was fair? it doesn't seem fair or logical to me.

you're making statements which show you are in the paradigm of the "flat Earth" theorists. ...your prejudiced view (and some other locals here too) towards "non-mainstream" knowledge is exactly the same as the close-minded paradigm of the flat Earth theorists.

is this a good enough example? or are you still letting your irrational anti-Rodin mindset convince you into saying/believing foolish things?

Actually this example makes you look foolish. There is no truth to what you say.

If you don't learn anything else from this thread at least learn the truth about the myth of the flat Earth:

Myth of the Flat Earth

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."

reply to post by Arbitrageur


hm, well i don't know about you, but in grade school I was taught that "scientists" used to believe the Earth was flat. I don't think I'm the only one who was taught this,,i'm sure you can survey and find that most Americans were taught that as well.

Because we are taught this in our government-endorsed academia, we must assume it to be true. this is what our modern education is, a school teaching children "truths" that have been agreed upon around the world.

and while you provide wiki as the source for your opinion, i raise you with another wiki article, which provides a plethora of evidence that I am not speaking foolishly when I say that cultures in the past DID practice the flat earth theory:

Flat Earth

Some historians consider that the early advocates who projected flat Earth upon Christians of the Middle Ages were highly influential

Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century.[citation needed] It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.

The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model.

~ now, I understand the point you're trying to make. But answer me this: does it change at all my point of my post?

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

hm, well i don't know about you, but in grade school I was taught that "scientists" used to believe the Earth was flat.

I'm not even sure of that. You may have oversimplified the message and it stuck. Or they had to dumb it down for you.

Because we are taught this in our government-endorsed academia, we must assume it to be true.

Who told you that you have to take everything on faith? That's some really screwed up notion. Don't blame it on the government, everyone needs to learn to use their brain, and even if there is not much between your ears, critical thinking is of great help. There is logic and experimentation, that form a basis for that.

Instead, you are blaming the "government" for your damaged state where you accept all sorts of nonsense (like Rodin's) on pure faith. Duh.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


I think you do not understand what Mary sees at "mainstream" and "non-mainstream". Non-mainstream is anything that claims that mainstream is completely wrong, rather than an extension on it.

Your example a miss. We are talking about modern science. Remember that Mary endorses ancient wisdom and therefor likes the flat earth theory.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

Remember that Mary endorses ancient wisdom and therefor likes the flat earth theory.

pfft. you're a regular comedian with that type of logic.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

Remember that Mary endorses ancient wisdom and therefor likes the flat earth theory.

pfft. you're a regular comedian with that type of logic.

You are completely unfamiliar with what is called SYLLOGISM in both modern and ancient culture.

Mary likes ancient wisdom, flat Earth used to be a part of ancient wisdom, ergo Mary likes flat Earth. Duh.

reply to post by -PLB-

We are talking about modern science. Remember that Mary endorses ancient wisdom and therefor likes the flat earth theory.

Mary is only talking about ancient science, as it were. The types of people she cites are the ones who never thought that the world was flat. They were open minded. These ancients were at the pinnacle of science and we haven't necessarily surpassed some of their knowledge - especially on a holistic sense.

You are closed minded. The archaic theories you endorse when you criticize others will be known as ideas from simpletons, just as the earth is flat. It has to be that way because every fact you accept will some day be disproved / improved.

I can never hope to gain much from people who fail to realize that nothing is permanent. All the rules are going to be broken. The best science can offer is a more complex snap shot in time - (sometimes forward thinking rules). The tools science offers are hard won and can yield a great deal, but they don't do a lot for humans on a day-to-day level. Moreover there are better ways to get ahead.

Originally posted by squandered

Mary is only talking about ancient science, as it were. The types of people she cites are the ones who never thought that the world was flat. They were open minded. These ancients were at the pinnacle of science and we haven't necessarily surpassed some of their knowledge - especially on a holistic sense.

Science isn't "holistic" in the modern warm fuzzy and completely useless "sense" - it is as factual and as accurate as possible.

So what is this scientific knowledge that the ancients still surpass us in?

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by -PLB-

 

We are talking about modern science. Remember that Mary endorses ancient wisdom and therefor likes the flat earth theory.

Mary is only talking about ancient science, as it were. The types of people she cites are the ones who never thought that the world was flat. They were open minded. These ancients were at the pinnacle of science and we haven't necessarily surpassed some of their knowledge

I don't recall many quotes by Mary, from ancient wise people. She's actually pretty ignorant of things ancient. At the same time,

en.wikipedia.org...

The Flat Earth model is a belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century.[citation needed] It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A multimeter and a length of copper wire hardly constitute a piece of classified technology. Needless to say, you saying "I have a proof but I'll have to shoot you" is laughable.

Hmm. A lot of smart guys in this thread. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I didn't recall saying anything like this. Non-civilian has multiple definitions. I was offering to follow up when I got home. Since you have all the answers though, there's probably nothing I could teach you here. I suppose managing to insult me twice in one comment proves something about yourself, however.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
hm, well i don't know about you, but in grade school I was taught that "scientists" used to believe the Earth was flat. I don't think I'm the only one who was taught this,,i'm sure you can survey and find that most Americans were taught that as well.

Because we are taught this in our government-endorsed academia, we must assume it to be true. this is what our modern education is, a school teaching children "truths" that have been agreed upon around the world.

I may have been a bit harsh with you, but my bigger gripe is actually with Mary who tries to portray me, buddhasystem, PLB or anyone else who thinks there is some validity to mainstream science as brainless drones who have been brainwashed by the educational system and we believe everything we are taught.

I'm not going to miss this opportunity to rebut Mary's accusation, that I believe what I'm taught. I was taught that "people" believed that the Earth was flat around the time of Columbus, though I don't recall hearing the word "scientists" which you specifically referred to. Frankly I think inserting "scientists" into that is some wishful confabulation on your part.

Even today, there can be a difference between what "scientists" believe and what "people" in general believe.

What we were taught is probably an error as this source suggests:

Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.

So this was known to be a commonly taught error in history in 1945 yet I was taught the same error well after that date.

One of the main points to make here to you and Mary is, I do NOT believe everything I'm taught in school, contrary to Mary's accusations otherwise. This applies to science as well as history. This is also why I've challenged Mary to make some basic measurements and compare them to mainstream claims and see if they agree with mainstream or not...I'm not asking you or her or anybody else to accept what mainstream teaches as fact,,, sometimes, it's not, as this history lesson shows. But when I make measurements in the lab, mainstream books can't fool me.

My measuring instruments have no idea what the mainstream books say...they just measure. This is my point, and it's an important one, which I don't think you appreciate, and I don't think Mary appreciates.

and while you provide wiki as the source for your opinion, i raise you with another wiki article, which provides a plethora of evidence that I am not speaking foolishly

Again I may have been a bit harsh with the foolish accusation, but your source still does not say scientists thought the earth was flat, which is what you claimed. The word scientists doesn't appear there. And we are using modern science and scientific methods as the basis for our mainstream claims today.

now, I understand the point you're trying to make. But answer me this: does it change at all my point of my post?

Actually, the example may illustrate the opposite of the point you were trying to make. Your example shows that historically what the scientists believed (that the Earth was round) tended to be more correct than what non-scientists believed. I think you were trying to make the point that scientists were wrong, but this example only demonstrates that they were right.

Now, are scientists ALWAYS right? Of course not, nor do they claim to be. In 1915 the hypothesis of plate tectonics was considered to be perhaps "fringe science" or something like that. Proponents saw the jigsaw-puzzle like fit of the continents that I myself noticed at age 6 before I knew what plate tectonics was, and they had evidence of similar fossils on the matching parts of coastlines that were separated. Yet even with this evidence, plate tectonics was not accepted by mainstream science. You could say they were wrong, but I would say in a sense, they were right to NOT accept this correct theory because they didn't have enough evidence to support it at the time. Decades later when evidence was gathered which demonstrated the mechanism for plate tectonics, the evidence was sufficient and it was quickly adopted by mainstream science.

So what persuades mainstream scientists? Verifiable, repeatable, evidence.

That's what's been requested in this thread to support claims. And it has not been provided. Furthermore, evidence contrary to Rodin's claims HAS been provided. That's how we know he's wrong...it's not because science is always right. It's because science looks at evidence and the evidence says he's wrong.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


here's one example: New Russian Pyramid Research

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Yes, mainstream knowledge perpetuates itself by coercion, and those wallowing in it do so at the expense of progress. The technique of debate - ridicule - demonstrates the lack of substance in the argument.

There is definitely lack of substance in the argument on Rodin's side of the debate, no doubt about that.

Americanist doesn't even know the definition of a black hole. How are we supposed to debate something when the supporters don't even know what the heck it is? Infinite mass? Give me a break.

There are numerous members of ATS here more than willing to debate substance, if there was any. You haven't taken me up on my challenge to you to apply voltage to a resistor, and see if you measure a different current than I do, but instead you claim I'm living in some kind of alternate reality and you seem to think we wouldn't get the same results. Buddhasystem even showed you where you can buy an economical test kit. That would be substance, to see if we really do get the same measurements, and we wouldn't have to trust any mainstream book or claim to do it.

But since there is no substance brought forth by Rodin supporters, ridicule is about all that's left, probably appropriately. No wonder Rodin supporters find it credible there's a black hole in Rodin's sudoku donut if they don't even know what a black hole is and have to ask somebody else to define it.

I almost take offense to you mentioning my name, but I realize you don't know what you don't know... You'll cite wiki as the end all-be all to your argument, and therein lies the problem.

It's been asked point blank what a black hole is in your own personal opinion. It's been asked how cell phone towers process voice and data. It's been asked how the heart muscle is structured. For that matter, cellular structure and how blood travels through our blood vessels. Until last year light was the fastest possible speed. Up until something along the last decade we hadn't yet determined black holes were at the heart of galaxies. Around the same time frame we mapped our own genome, built circuitry into fiber optics, and added nano-sized graphene to the list of conductive material.

Moral of the story... You have no clue what a black hole is, nor does wiki and its predictions.

A black hole is a region of spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return

Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed it can continue to grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. By absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes, supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses may form. There is general consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies. In particular, there is strong evidence of a black hole of more than 4 million solar masses at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

en.wikipedia.org...




At least I'm not the only one who can tell you're incompetent while passing this off as actual substance.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Assuming that Rodin or his followers know anything about the subjects he is preaching is indeed a big mistake. In fact, it is a requirement that you know very little about the subjects. If you do have basic knowledge about the subjects, you won't be a follower.

Fortunately, a fairly large portion have also heard of Walter Russell, Tesla, Stubblefield, Keely, etc., etc.

You can target a couple names off that list, but I can assure you... You're heavily outgunned with them being combined.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Assuming that Rodin or his followers know anything about the subjects he is preaching is indeed a big mistake. In fact, it is a requirement that you know very little about the subjects. If you do have basic knowledge about the subjects, you won't be a follower.

Fortunately, a fairly large portion have also heard of Walter Russell, Tesla, Stubblefield, Keely, etc., etc.

In my mother tongue, there is a saying: "if you keep quiet, you may pass for a smart man". That's a piece of ancient wisdom for you.

If Tesla ever met Rodin, he'd most likely ignore him or zap him hard with some of his famous coils. Being an eccentric par excellence for Tesla did not mean a complete divorce with critical thinking. He would have liked to see what the Rodin coil does, and upon the inevitable discovery that it does nothing he'd be most displeased. I've seen parts of machinery he designed, it's down cold pretty solid work. Sure, he had more than a couple of wacky ideas, but at least he had the acumen to show for it.

But I digress. Whatever ideas Tesla had (some were valid and some probably not, I think the design of the death ray was overoptimistic -- I'm familiar with some of the technologies involved) -- they had nothing to do with Rodin. All you did was to throw together a bunch of names, some patent frauds, some weirdos, and that Tesla guy. So there is an obvious non sequitur here. Sure, let's include Zoroaster, Bab, Henry Ford, and a bunch of other cool guys. How on earth does it constitute any support of Rodin's claims which are false in face of experimental evidence and otherwise are cold f$ck stupid?

reply to post by buddhasystem



Give us a shout when it's been discovered you've correctly referenced previously unknown elements...


Plus when you're able to comprehend the quote:

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe. - Nikola Tesla

I haven't seen this yet, but it should be interesting:

Originally posted by Americanist
At least I'm not the only one who can tell you're incompetent while passing this off as actual substance.

What's wrong with that? Your inability to comprehend that hardly makes me incompetent, but it does suggest things about you.

And what do you think these stars are orbiting, or do you think that they have consciousness and are just changing directions around the exact same empty point in space because they got bored (and how could they do that even if they wanted to)?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0864450afef4.gif[/atsimg]
This is substance, and this is what is lacking in every one of your posts, including the last one.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
At least I'm not the only one who can tell you're incompetent while passing this off as actual substance.

What's wrong with that? Your inability to comprehend that hardly makes me incompetent, but it does suggest things about you.

And what do you think these start are orbiting, or do you think that they have consciousness and are just changing directions around the exact same empty point in space because they got bored (and how could they do that even if they wanted to)?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0864450afef4.gif[/atsimg]
This is substance, and this is what is lacking in every one of your posts, including the last one.

I addressed you specifically:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Americanist
I addressed you specifically:

Again you're not making any sense. What does the animation I posted of stars orbiting a black hole have to do with personality traits?

Are you saying I have such an attractive personality, I'm the one changing those star's orbits?

reply to post by Americanist


He is some more number magic...
Shame no one in the last thousand years or so, thought that magic tricks with numbers could solve food supply, intergalactic travel, etc....
I will give you this, rodin does tell some tall tales.

Fortunate number theory

As for Tesla, I protest!
What he said about numbers was not cryptic, he was obsessive compulsive, always needing 3, chairs with 3 legs, etc.
Surely you can look up OC on wikipedia.
I object, because Tesla was a very smart man, why make him out to be a rodin nut?
As buddhasystem mentioned, I also suspect that all rodin would get from Tesla are two slaps on the face and sheer disgust.


Here is something to ponder upon:
Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow is too lazy to form an opinion." Will Rogers

So you are very broad minden, where is the scientific observation and measurement of rosins "theories"? anyway, where are his "theories"?