"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by squandered


Listen to you? Who are you that makes what you say worth accepting?

Maybe you should start by acknowledging that yes, mainstream science has many things pretty much correct. In contrast to the non-mainstream junk Mary comes with. Are you typing your posts on a Rodin computer or a "mainstream science" computer?

Your point that there are probably places with different laws of physics is just silly. In no way does that invalidate our understanding of physics we have on earth right now. These laws will always be correct within their boundaries. No physicist has ever claimed a theory is "all encumbering", nor have I. That does not make our current theories wrong, just incomplete, meaning we should keep looking.

If you are going to argue that mainstream science has it wrong and Mary's crap got it right, at least try to construct a proper argument.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Yes it's cool, lame pun intended.

And as that video confirms, what will take water out of a supercooled state, or out of a superheated state in the example you gave, is some kind of disturbance, just as you explained. And what shape of building is needed to prevent such a disturbance? Here's my hypothesis...any structure that blocks disturbances that would disrupt the supercooling would suffice. In most cases all this means is, it needs to block the wind and not be too drafty, as wind would be a primary distrubance. If the building was in an earthquake-prone area, ground shaking could be another form of disturbance which could be lessened with an appropriate isolation construction in the floor.

Now, how cold can water really get with supercooling? That's an interesting question you raised and I don't know the answer. There are other factors which would also contribute to this, such as the purity of the water, since ice crystals have been known to start forming around impurities. The amount of dissolved gases in the water could also be varied in different samples in the experiment, as this is believed to be another possible factor:

But if someone ran experiments to determine the lowest possible supercooling temperature, they would need to be a very careful experimenter. Maybe the lower the temperature, the more sensitive the supercooled water is to smaller disturbances like possibly the sound waves from raindrops hitting the roof of the structure? Or maybe that's too small a disturbance to have an effect? Maybe the shape and design of the structure itself could result in some resonance when the wind blows (think Tacoma narrows bridge) that could provide even stronger sound waves than the raindrops which may or may not have an effect on the lowest possible supercooling temperature.

I don't know all the answers to these questions, but questions like these would be fun to explore in real experiments. There is some real science that could be explored in this area, but I didn't really see evidence in the link metalshredmetal provided that the scientists were exploring these real questions...on the contrary, their apparent conclusion that the supercooling was the result of the pyramid with no mention of any control group shapes seems unscientific to me.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Your point that there are probably places with different laws of physics is just silly. In no way does that invalidate our understanding of physics we have on earth right now. These laws will always be correct within their boundaries. No physicist has ever claimed a theory is "all encumbering", nor have I. That does not make our current theories wrong, just incomplete, meaning we should keep looking.

I think squandered might have meant to say all-encompassing?

We've actually looked though billions of light years of space and billions of years of time with powerful telescopes to see if laws of physics appear to be similar everywhere. Even in one study which claimed to have found a difference, the difference was only 1 part in 100,000. My first question would be if they've really ruled out observational or measurement error with such a small difference, but even if that's the real variation, I'd say if the laws are so similar everywhere that they are within 1 part in 100,000, the difference would be hard for most people to notice without scientific measuring instruments to detect that small a difference.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Your post reminds me of the official, "scientific" story of how the towers fell on 9-11.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Your post reminds me of the official, "scientific" story of how the towers fell on 9-11.

Just like you have your non-mainstream sources claiming modern cranes can't lift more than 200 Tons, I also have my non-mainstream sources. Since discussion of 9/11 should really take place in the 9/11 forum, I don't want to get into a discussion of that here, but I will give you a sneak peek at a picture I got from a non-mainstream source:



Obviously the official explanation of 9/11 doesn't even begin to explain that!

Regarding Rodin and pi, I ‘m wondering whether he’s referring to decimal parity:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Russell P Blake Endoresements and Papers"

Reading this document I see that Blake uses the term "decimal parity." He says the decimal parity digit of 2048 is 5.

So, if you substitute an equal sign for the word "is," then 2048 = 5.

Of course the digits involved are infinite, so I don’t know how the digits to add would be ascertained.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


its a cover up, I tell you!
its so obvious!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well, I was actually already reading "all-encompassing". I guess this is a case where one error corrects another error . But whether there are places where the laws of physics are different is actually irrelevant to the question whether our current understanding of physics is correct or not. For the physics here and now it is, and that is what matters for "progress". To know that somewhere in an another universe the speed of light is twice as fast isn't going to give us "free energy", "a cure to all diseases" or "pulsar atom flux generators" or whatever nonsense. And it doesn't make our c wrong either. That was basically my point.

all of a sudden i guess a whole team of scientists isn't credible...because they are studying pyramids?

some here furiously demand scientific sources and totally write-off and disrespect other members who do not cite "real" scientists or scientific sources.

this has always been the case with the sort of locals in this thread,,,they irrationally refuse very much information, and only accept information from "mainstream" "scientists"..BUT when those scientists are not supporting "mainstream" science theories, they are completely ignored and not considered credible? How odd....

next thing i know someone will claim that their opinion is the absolute truth, and claim to be more knowledgeable than this whole team of scientists....

while perusing this list of scientists and PhDs and such, remember that this was their conclusion after their research:

Summarizing we may infer that the inerton field, a new physical field, which as fundamental as the electromagnetic one may well have been known by the architects of the Great Pyramid. They built the Great Pyramid as the House that was saturated with inerton waves.

interesting to ponder how this new field may interact with torus dynamics and Rodin-esque research...


NEW RUSSIAN PYRAMID RESEARCH TEAM:

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets, manager of the project, Dr., senior scientist, graduated as a theoretical physicist from the Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University..

Education:
Cathedra of Theorertical Physics,
the Faculty of Physics at Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University, Kyiv, Ukraine (1974-1979).

Professional activity:
1981 up till now a collaborator of the Department of Theoretical Physics at the Institute of Physics, Natl. Acad. Sci., Kyiv

1979-1981 an engineer researcher at the Department of Superconductivity of The Institute of Metal Physics, Natl. Acad. Sci., Kyiv

Membership:
2001 Vice Editor of the journal Spacetime & Substance
2001 an Advisory Board Member of The Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association
2003 Full Professor of Physics of the Institute for Basic Research
2005 an Advisory Board Member of the journal Scientific Inquiry
2005 a Consulting Fellow of The World Innovation Foundation

Ph.D. (solid state physics):
"On the Mechanism of Proton Conductivity Along a Quasi-isolated Molecular Chain of Hydrogen Bonds" (1987)

Olexander Strokach, Dr., senior scientist, vice-head of the department, and Mykola Morozovsky, Dr., senior scientist, for about 25 years have been working in the Department of Receivers of Radiation at the Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Dr. Strokach graduated as a theoretical physicist from the Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University.

Valery Byckov, Dr., research scientist of the Department of Physical Electronics, Institute of Physics.

Yuri Bogdanov graduated as a cybernetics, PhD in technical sciences. He is a Corresponding Member of the International Academy of Energy-Information Sciences.

Olexander Sokolov, senior scientist from the same Institute of TTR. He is a remarkable specialist in the measuring and diagnostics of surface geometry of a territory and the analysis of results with software applying.

Oleh Kramarenko, major geologist from the firm "Ukrainian Energobuilding," Kharkiv. He was the first who introduced new equipment of the series ''Tesey" for diagnostics of bowels of the Earth in Ukraine.

The partner of Dr. Bogdanov, sheikh Junaid Mohammad Khoory from Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, is also gone into the team, which one who is a specialist in the utilizing know-how of variation of the structural performances of matter at the availability of energetic shapes of a type a pyramid.

in conclusion: this team of scientists/credentials > random anonymous forum browser

reply to post by metalshredmetal


The thing that made him lose credit for me is:

It is plausible to assume that antigravitational machines once were used on the Earth. Namely, they were employed by builders of pyramids in ancient Egypt. Moreover, it seems that the method used by the ancients was rediscovered and then successfully applied to the construction of Coral Castle in Florida by Edward Leedskalnin who claimed “I know the secret of how the pyramids of Egypt were built!” For more information I refer the reader to the very serious book The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt (Bear & Company Publishing, Santa Fe, 1998) by Christopher Dunn.

(source)

Even scientists, no matter how good they are, need to produce evidence. Where is the evidence for antigravitational machines in ancient Egypt? Or antigravitational machines in Florida? (other than incredulity about how the pyramids could be build)

This isn't new. Its just taking modern science and math time to catch up to where people were thousands of years ago. This is nothing but divine mathematics. It's only now that the masses are starting to wake up to it. This is not new or revolutionary. It has been known and people have been using it. You are only just starting to scratch the surface dig deeper.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


No they are not credible. Because they do not understand nature so they will never understand the pyramids. Our modern scientists are nothing but robots who don't know how to function outside of what has already been theorized or "proven". When you place yourself within the "rules of science" you limit what you can discover. It is only when you say nothing is impossible that things start to become more clear.

reply to post by -PLB-


What more evidence do you need mr skeptic? The Florida man Edward Leedskalnin at 5 foot nothing 120 pounds built coral castle using modern machinery..... yeah makes perfect sense. He worked with magnets there is your evidence now use your brain and you can figure out the basis behind how it was done. Stop being a skeptic.

As result of the "discussion" about pyramids, I watched a documentary about a theory of a Frenchman called Jean-Pierre Houdin. I actually read about it before, and was wondering if there was any progress in the meanwhile. It is an interesting and plausible theory. Its much more plausible than aliens ore antigravity machines. Only thing is, it is lacking direct evidence. On the positive side, it can be falsified. If it turns out that there is no evidence of internal hallways used for construction, we can conclude the theory is wrong.

But at the same time, as I was watching his theory about the function of the gallery, isn't a really simply explanation for how they got those block up simply by using an "elevator" along the ramp of the pyramid itself? Sure the angle of the slope would be way to steep to pull the blocks up by hand, but I propose to use humans as counterweight on the other side of the pyramid. So workers simply climb up the pyramid, stand on a platform as counterweight, pull the block up while going down themselves, and repeat. It seems to be an extremely simple method without the need of very complicated or large devices or designs.

Well, I am sure that others already come with this idea and that it has already been shot down. But I could not really find it on my short search, and it seems more plausible to me than all those popular theories with ramps.

reply to post by -PLB-


"next thing i know someone will claim that their opinion is the absolute truth, and claim to be more knowledgeable than this whole team of scientists.... "

"this team of scientists/credentials > random anonymous forum browser"

"plausible"

if you didn't know what plausible means, here's a "kids definition"

STUDENT DICTIONARY

One entry found for plausible.
Main Entry: plau·si·ble

Etymology: from Latin plausibilis "deserving applause, pleasing," from plausus, past participle of plaudere "to clap" --related to APPLAUD, EXPLODE, PLAUDIT

1 : seemingly fair, reasonable, or valuable but often not so
2 : appearing worthy of belief

Word History: A plausible explanation is one that sounds as if it could be true. Such an explanation is not usually greeted with applause, but the origin of plausible suggests that it might be. Plausible comes from the Latin word plausibilis, meaning "worthy of applause." The first use of plausible in English was to describe a person or thing that deserved special praise. That use is now obsolete. To call something plausible now is to praise it only slightly, if at all.

Originally posted by tpaine1809
reply to post by -PLB-

 

What more evidence do you need mr skeptic? The Florida man Edward Leedskalnin at 5 foot nothing 120 pounds built coral castle using modern machinery..... yeah makes perfect sense. He worked with magnets there is your evidence now use your brain and you can figure out the basis behind how it was done. Stop being a skeptic.

Actually I posted a photograph of the "antigravity machine" he used to make Coral Castle, but it doesn't appear to have any magnets.

I'll try to be a little less skeptical if you try to be a little less gullible. Deal?

reply to post by tpaine1809


Never, when you stop being skeptical, your brain gets filled with nonsense. And besides that, I don't see any evidence in your post.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


To me plausible is something else than pure fantasy. How about this "plausible" theory: Egyptian wizards lifted those blocks with the power of Ra. Can you explain why "antigravitational machines" is more plausible than wizards? Note that neither are shown to exist.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You don't know how it works because you are a skeptic. Morons that run around saying you have to prove it to me are the worst kind. Figure it out for yourself the information is all there. That is why he didn't tell anyone exactly how he did it.

reply to post by -PLB-


Really? So all these dreamer scientists who actually made discoveries amid mass skepticism were crazy I see. You and many of the other scientist that behave as such are the reason humanity is still so under developed. The rodin coil proves the earth is hollow yet you are too dim witted to figure it out.