"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I don't know. I was hoping someone who's not a smartass would help out.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Oh - well sorry then - as I said to me it is gibberish - the words are fine, but the sentences are meaningless.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't know. I was hoping someone who's not a smartass would help out.

And the opposite of smart would be...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You're an engineer? I like the perspective of engineers better than physicists because the information seems less abstract and more practical and useable. Maybe as I continue to read this book I can ask specific, relevant questions and you might be willing to answer them.

Merrick has a Facebook page for his book, and I've posted a request that he illustrate what he's talking about. I suspect I'll get an answer, because I've posted other comments and he's responded. I think an illustration will help.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You're an engineer? I like the perspective of engineers better than physicists because the information seems less abstract and more practical and useable.

Interesting! This thread is about Rodin, who claims to have found the "perfect intonation of the name of God" and has allegedly invented "vortex mathematics". Neither is practical or useable. And claiming that 9th partial has metaphysical significance is not either. So this preference is quite strange.

But I'm looking forward to hearing what Aloysius and other people with decent brain will contribute to this thread. I anticipate a lot of comic effect, when it comes to discussion of pseudo science -- if they care to comment at all.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So this preference is quite strange.

Not at all; you just lack the wisdom to understand and the humility to try to.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So this preference is quite strange.

Not at all; you just lack the wisdom to understand and the humility to try to.

Mary, you can't even point to what's there to be "understood". Rodin draws a pretzel and claims this is the only correct way to spell "God". Then you are asking engineers to evaluate practical usefulness of this. Incredible!

It's remarkable that Rodin does not calculate a single number that's related to the world we live in, with his "math". So what does a proper engineer have to say about that? Well, as one did, "gobbledy gook".

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, you can't even point to what's there to be "understood".

Buddhasystem, what there is to be understood is creative, intuitive, inspired, non-conformist analysis and original thinking by self-taught, self-motivated, unencumbered individuals who are the trail-blazers in this world. The engineers then take the theory arrived at by these hard-working trail-blazers/inventors and implement their ideas. Bottom line is that I'm interested in the technology and what it can do for us. But first someone has to think outside the box.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, you can't even point to what's there to be "understood".

Buddhasystem, what there is to be understood is creative, intuitive, inspired, non-conformist analysis and original thinking by self-taught, self-motivated, unencumbered individuals who are the trail-blazers in this world. The engineers then take the theory arrived at by these hard-working trail-blazers/inventors and implement their ideas.

That's the point I was making all along -- there is no idea. There is a portfolio of random pronouncements, like "I found the most efficient way for electrons to move", which is

a) not backed by any theory outside of a doodle with sequence of numbers
b) not backed by any experimental measurement whatsoever

There is other stuff there like "I created a black hole", which is again subject to (a) and (b). It's astonishing that anyone would consider this "original thinking".

Anyone can come up with a shape or form and declare it sacred and/or possessing special properties. How about wire frames in the shape of Star of David? Or tetrahedron? There is much metaphysical tripe that can be added to either of these two, and just like Rodin's bunch of baloney, it won't be supported by a theory or an experiment. I asked you 100 times to get a multimeter and measure the impedance of Rodin'd coil. The fact that you declined to do it is an indication that you don't really believe that stuff yourself, and it's not worth $6 to you, which would be the cost of the multimeter.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Blah, blah, blah. I didn't read your post. I can't be bothered!!





Get the picture?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't read your post. I can't be bothered!!

Get the picture?

Oh, I totally get it. I got it a long time ago, and Aloysius did on the previous page:

So which of us has done the greater service - you, for posting gibberish, or me, for pointing it out?

reply to post by buddhasystem


BS always has an answer. A real pro.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You're an engineer?

Not really - I am an aircraft mechanic by trade, and have several units of various engineering papers at year 2 & 3 as part of my degree - which is in history - that being a hell of lot more interesting than engineering!

I like the perspective of engineers better than physicists because the information seems less abstract and more practical and useable. Maybe as I continue to read this book I can ask specific, relevant questions and you might be willing to answer them.

Happy to do so if I know the answers.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Not really - I am an aircraft mechanic by trade, and have several units of various engineering papers at year 2 & 3 as part of my degree - which is in history - that being a hell of lot more interesting than engineering!

You sound like a Renaissance man!

reply to post by buddhasystem


Gibberish goes a long way presumably...

Scientists split an atom in two and then fuse it back together


www.zmescience.com... nce+%28ZME+Science%29


So what's that make an atom, or heat for that matter?

Researchers use webs of lasers to remove entropy from a system causing quantum gases to cool

phys.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Merrick has a Facebook page for his book, and I've posted a request that he illustrate what he's talking about.

I haven't gotten an answer yet so I've re-posted asking in a different way. Merrick has the document "Harmonically Guided Evolution," which is his summary paper of a publication "Harmonic Evolution: A Musical Theory of Everything," due to come out this year. I've asked whether there's an illustration in that document that applies.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Merrick has a Facebook page for his book, and I've posted a request that he illustrate what he's talking about.

I haven't gotten an answer yet so I've re-posted asking in a different way. Merrick has the document "Harmonically Guided Evolution," which is his summary paper of a publication "Harmonic Evolution: A Musical Theory of Everything," due to come out this year. I've asked whether there's an illustration in that document that applies.

Jesus H Christ,

this is a particularly retarded paper! Confer:

All life on Earth is composed mostly of carbon-12 and water

Has this guy ever gone to grade school? Really?

Quote from Wiki:

Nitrogen is an essential building block of amino and nucleic acids, essential to life on Earth.

...and I thought everyone knew that. Essential, get it?

And besides, this is the actual list:

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

I get the oxygen part (try to go for two days without it), but indeed there are quite a few essential elements that make us tick.


Then this moron goes on to say

This is the case because carbon-12 bonds or resonates with more
simple elements than any other element in the universe

Really? Resonates? Like, how?

With 6 protons + 6 neutrons in its nucleus and 6 electrons orbiting in two shells, carbon-12 exhibits the lowest possible energy of all the elements

This is a bit vague but it can't be defended at any level. The binding energy of a nucleon in carbon is not the lowest. As to the electrons in the shell, I don't see that ionization potential of carbon is somehow outstanding.

All in all, this is a steaming pile of pathological science turd.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Jesus H Christ

Please help BS!

He's losing it!

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Jesus H Christ

Please help BS!
He's losing it!

I'm losing it by quoting your source? Wow. By the way you didn't post anything on merit or substance. You didn't know the importance of nitrogen to life -- this much is obvious. Ignorance begets ignorance.

Well, there is more in that moronic write-up:

This idea of life as a crystallization process is a good one
because just as minerals align under pressure into lattices, coils of
amino acids fold under pressure into three-dimensional protein
structures, aligning into the familiar helical lattice of DNA.

What pressure? Does it take pressure for
a) crystals to crystallize? No.
b) DNA to form? No.

Oh, and this one:

When the 5-fold icosahedral superclusters of water is then
combined with the complementary dodecahedral structures
of carbon, something very interesting occurs - they resonate
with one another to produce the characteristic geometry of
life.

Really? They resonate? How? Was it measured?

What pile of turd.