"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

A dead issue at this point.

Yup, the issue is set in stone now. Milo Wolff -- just how low can he go?

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm not going to waste my time tracking down the context of the quote in question in order to ascertain its relevance. I already know what the track record is.

Focusing on personality/mental capacity or accusing people of fraud is a repeated, irrelevant tactic on this thread and a substantial part of the nonsense that has ruined it and made it next to impossible to discuss the math, physics, or technology raised in the OP.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I'm not going to waste my time tracking down the context of the quote

Oh, I'll be happy to help. Milo Wolff posts disparaging remarks in his review of Carver Mead's book, gives it ONE star out of five, and plugs in a link to his own book, saying that

Don't buy this over mathematical book. Instead buy the books that go to the heart of electromagnetism. They recognize that Nature is Simple; All the Natural Laws depend on only three properties of Space. Accordingly, the books are simple. Readers will enjoy them. Awards have been given:They are:
Schroedinger's Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws

So of all things, he complains about mathematical foundations of the physics book written by Mead! Wow, just wow. Then he shamelessly promotes his own wares, promising less workout for reader's brain. I'm sorry but from the science point of view that whole thing just blows.

And of course he showers accolades onto himself and presents himself with FIVE stars out of five:

The wave Structure of matter (WSM) is the next evolutionary leap forward in understanding the Natural Laws of Science and the Universe. It is the long-sought Theory of Everything, This book shows: "The entire Universe is the origin of matter including ourselves. It is meaningless that we could exist without the presence of the Stars. We are part of the Universe and the Universe is part of us." SEE: [ASIN:1432719793 Schroedinger's Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws]]

Focusing on personality/mental capacity or accusing people of fraud is a repeated, irrelevant tactic on this thread and a substantial part of the nonsense that has ruined it and made it next to impossible to discuss the math, physics, or technology raised in the OP.

How can anyone take seriously any theory which doesn't even pretend to take an objective look at things?

How can anyone take seriously an author who provides multiple references to Mead in his book, and tries to distort Mead's methodology so as it appears to support his own (which it doesn't), and uses Mead to buttress his pretty silly claims -- then turns around to say that Mead's book is not worth reading?


And please stop complaining about impossibility to "discuss math and physics". I asked you a few times the details of the Rodin torus operation and all you did was to regurgitate some psycho babble which contained no physics and no math, and I call hypocrisy on that.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And of course he showers accolades onto himself and presents himself with FIVE stars out of five:

Not exactly. One of one person found the review helpful; thus, the five stars.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I call hypocrisy on that.

Too bad you don't appreciate my contributions. Why don't you leave?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I saw Milo Wolff's name under the review I quoted from and thought it was his.

For the record, Milo Wolff's name is nowhere near the review you quoted.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
For the record, Milo Wolff's name is nowhere near the review you quoted.

I clicked on the one star reviews. Try that and see what happens.

Too bad you don't appreciate my contributions. Why don't you leave?

You must be thinking of the site that has the motto "ignore ignorance". But I see "Deny ignorance" at the top of the ATS pages so ignoring ignorance isn't the ATS way. And there's certainly more than an ample supply of ignorance to deny in this thread, not only from the sources quoted, but from ATS members who re-post their stuff here without any apparent critical thinking, and without any rational defense of the material when basic discrepancies are noted, like, why doesn't the guy's finger disappear into the black hole when he sticks it in the middle of the Rodin coil?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I clicked on the one star reviews.

I see. Looking for a bad review.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"Deny ignorance"

Yes, that slogan is used as an excuse for an attitude whereby ridicule is the method of debate.

It's unfortunate.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see. Looking for a bad review.

I also clicked on 3 star and 5 star. The other review I quoted was 3 star and I said it was more balanced.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe a more balanced review is the one by Neal King, excerpted here:

In summary, this book can be interesting, especially if you know some E&M and can follow the equations: there are some cute connections that may be fun to check out more carefully. But in the end, I don't think this is going to make any substantial impact on the way most physicists will think about electrodynamics or quantum mechanics.

Who can argue with that? It seems to me that scientists trying to influence the scientific community publish papers, while those writing books for the consumption of the general public have a different purpose in mind. So of course I wouldn't expect this book to have much of an impact on "the way most physicists will think about electrodynamics or quantum mechanics."

So to say "Looking for a bad review." shows a complete lack of reading comprehension on your part, which is nothing surprising given your poor track record in this regard. I was obviously looking at a variety of viewpoints which is why I also quoted the balanced view, a 3 star rating. I figured you already had the 5 star rating covered.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"Deny ignorance"

Yes, that slogan is used as an excuse for an attitude whereby ridicule is the method of debate.

It's unfortunate.

It's only an unfortunate slogan for people trying to spread ignorance. So yes, I can see why you would say it's unfortunate, for you. But it's not an excuse for an attitude: I see you still haven't explained why nothing disappears into the black hole in the middle of the Rodin coil, unless you want to admit that Rodin's claims are garbage, in which case that's all the explanation necessary. When you are faced with evidence, determining which position is ignorant is not determined by attitude, it's determined by the evidence.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So to say "Looking for a bad review." shows a complete lack of reading comprehension on your part . . .

No, it's not. What it is, however, is an indication that I've learned what your modus operandi is, and consequently scan your posts rather than reading them and taking them seriously.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's only an unfortunate slogan for people trying to spread ignorance.

Don't presume to know what I'm trying to do. You're not capable of it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I see you still haven't explained why nothing disappears into the black hole in the middle of the Rodin coil

Surely you know that the term "black hole" in the context of a Rodin coil has nothing to do with the popular concept of things getting sucked into a black hole in a galaxy never to return?

Surely you must know that the question itself is a mockery? An attempt to trap? Ridiculous? Silly?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And of course he showers accolades onto himself and presents himself with FIVE stars out of five:

Not exactly. One of one person found the review helpful; thus, the five stars.

I'm sorry Mary, but apparently you are not aware of how the Amazon rating system works, so let me explain. The stars are given by the reviewing person, and the "helpful" tag is added by users, without having any influence on the number of stars. There are reviews with zero "helpful" tags which still have 4 stars, i.e. you are woefully incorrect. Do you shop on Amazon?

And, on the same page, 10 of 21 people found the following review (1 star) of Milo's book helpful:

religion looking for an outlet
This book is total crap! It claims to present the nature of matter as something other than what we observe. For instance, the author claims to explain away the particle/wave duality of matter without explaining the results of experiments that demonstrate it.

The WSM (wave structure of matter) is a philosophical claim that quotes scientists completely out of context and is full of false statements and claims. It presents a religious argument (an argument to be taken on faith as it has no basis in fact) that gives its believers a rallying point because they can't or are unwilling to study and learn either the nature or the mathematics of current scientific theories; theories that have been developed according to the modern scientific method.

As a case in point, I can not do the mathematics that underlie the general theory of relativity or the Standard Model but I have been studying the math and the theories for more than 45 years and believe I have a basic grasp of what they explain and how they explain it and this WSM is just bunk. The author spends the first part of this book telling you what the rest of the book will demonstrate. It is repetitive and has no substance. When you get to the part that is supposed to explain what was described you find a restatement of the ideas using the present tense instead of the future tense and discussions of philosophy that "explain" why this alternative to conventional scientific thought is acceptable yet not adopted by the scientific community. Finally, the appendices that are supposed to present the mathematics of the WSM, which is so much simpler than the mathematics of general relativity or the Standard model because these theories have been "explained away", is nothing more than the basic algebraic equations of quantum physics and mechanics like E = mc^2. It gives the believer an excuse not to try to learn what is accepted. Bottom line, save your money.

I think (having read some pages from that book) that this review sums things up nicely. So what happens next, our friend and auteur Milo visits that page and reads that pretty accurate review, and goes "OMG! I need to do something about it!" So he posts a five-star review of his own book, which is deeply unethical and frankly asinine. And then goes on to add a pejorative review of the book written by an author with some real knowledge of physics (Mead) who he himself profusely quotes in his opus, just fighting for the market share, I suppose.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I call hypocrisy on that.

Too bad you don't appreciate my contributions. Why don't you leave?

If somebody leaves trash strewn around my block, I can acquiesce and do nothing, or I can put up a sign "neighbors' watch" or "shame on you".

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I see you still haven't explained why nothing disappears into the black hole in the middle of the Rodin coil

Surely you know that the term "black hole" in the context of a Rodin coil has nothing to do with the popular concept of things getting sucked into a black hole in a galaxy never to return?

This is about the 10,000th times you attempt a cop-out by a dictionary hijack. If Rodin says he has a special case of a black hole which has little to do with what physicists call a black hole, he either needs to be specific about what's different or chose a different term (like "Rodinhole").

If one says "macaroni and cheese" but means "filet mignon", this is either an attempt at deception or a sign of mental decease, or a bit of both.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm sorry Mary, but apparently you are not aware of how the Amazon rating system works, so let me explain. The stars are given by the reviewing person, and the "helpful" tag is added by users, without having any influence on the number of stars. There are reviews with zero "helpful" tags which still have 4 stars, i.e. you are woefully incorrect.

Thanks, BS, I appreciate that. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mead is the author of a book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, published by The MIT Press in August 2002.

It is interesting to read its Amazon.com Book Description

The following screen shot is from the "Look Inside" for the book, the Introduction section, which cuts off in the middle of a sentence, but I like the excerpt:

reply to post by buddhasystem


I interpret him to mean sucking aether in and expelling energy out - black hole - white hole.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So he posts a five-star review of his own book, which is deeply unethical and frankly asinine. And then goes on to add a pejorative review of the book written by an author with some real knowledge of physics (Mead) who he himself profusely quotes in his opus, just fighting for the market share, I suppose.

I don't think it is unethical to post a review of your own book as long as you use your correct name; maybe it shows a lack of humility. But people trying to do battle with mainstream physics sometimes resort to such tactics.

Wolff's review of Mead is not that bad; he says:

Carver Mead is a brilliant inventor and engineer but he does not understand the "foundations of electromagnetism" in the way Feynman would have understood these words. . . .

Yeah, he says don't buy the book! Okay, naughty Milo Wolff.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't think it is unethical to post a review of your own book as long as you use your correct name; maybe it shows a lack of humility. But people trying to do battle with mainstream physics sometimes resort to such tactics.

Well then, they suck. Especially when Milo make disparaging remarks about Mead, all the while providing quotes of Mead's work in his book. But OK, I don't care that Milo is a piece of turd, what really matters is how bankrupt his "theory" is. He promised the "theory of everything". Has he delivered at least partially? The answer is a resounding "no". There is not a single piece of theory put together describing a verifiable phenomenon wherein the said theory can be tested. Forget that, there is little to nothing being actually described. As other reviewers have noticed, he can be very bitter about "mainstream" but he really offers jack in exchange for it. I keep reading some pages from the book and they are clearly false even in what he's trying to criticize the "mainstream" for (that sentence involving gluons on page 99).

So Milo promulgates fictitious theories and effectively abates ignorance... And the lemmings follow.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Overkill. Not to be taken seriously.

Too bad there cannot be a discussion here. But, something good will come of this thread, from the information that has been read.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Overkill. Not to be taken seriously.

Too bad there cannot be a discussion here. But, something good will come of this thread, from the information that has been read.

It has been an interesting thread.

You make everything more clear than you otherwise might and the rebuttals are informative too, to me

There are definitely two kinds of thought being expressed here. There has been plenty of discourse about the philosophical purpose of science which interests me too.

There is more to science than proof. Theories need funding to be tested.

Does science cause outcomes?

Originally posted by squandered
There is more to science than proof. Theories need funding to be tested.

It depends on the theory, or hypothesis.

The LHC takes a lot of funding to build and run, no doubt about that.

However testing claims about the resistance of a wire could be done on your kitchen table with $10 worth of material and test equipment. So you can't blame crazy theories about the resistance of a wire not being tested on lack of funding, you can do it yourself.