"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've asked whether there's an illustration in that document that applies.

I got an answer. Merrick has referred me to the 410 page .pdf file "Interference - A Grand Scientific Musical Theory," (a free download), specifically pages 154-157. I think the pages before page 154 need to be read to put this in context.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think the pages before page 154 need to be read to put this in context.

I'm on page 121. I'm struck by this passage, from a chapter entitled " Dodecaphonic Dice," (dodecahedron = a polyhedron with 12 faces):

In general, the INTERFERENCE equation can be used to measure resonant amplitudes for any musical interval under any temperament or octave division. This equation tells us that minimum resonance occurs at the fourth root of an octave (or square root of twelve) while maximum resonance occurs at the cube root of half an octave. Taken together, these results offer clear evidence that harmonic interference balances naturally around 12 as the most rational and harmonic number possible. This is then counterbalanced by the golden ratio, which is the most irrational and enharmonic number possible. When Einstein said: "God does not play dice with the universe," he must not have considered the possibility of dodecahedral dice.

I hope there is another member reading the .pdf who can comment on it. Maybe someone with a background in music theory. Merrick is a jazz pianist and composer and is using his knowledge in his pursuit of an understanding of how nature operates.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
PESWiki has links to a 12 part video series of a Coast-to-Coast interview of Eugene Mallove that took place February 3, 2004. I'm on part 5; it's a very informative interview: Videos

I'm reading a .pdf right now that brought back to mind for me something Mallove said in the above series of videos. The .pdf is entitled "Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and the author is Raleigh Amesbury. This is one well-written and thought-provoking document.

The part that reminds me of Mallove is Amesbury's account of the wrong turn science took with relativistic time dilation, which is discussed beginning on page 4. Amesbury references, among other things, Irish engineer Alphonsus G. (Al) Kelly's thorough analysis of the famous Hafele-Keating (H & K) experiment of 1972, using the four atomic clocks. Kelly is the author of a 2005 book, Challenging Modern Physics.

The comment Mallove made in Part 8 of the 12 part series was, "Time dilation is not part of the universe."

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading a .pdf right now that brought back to mind for me something Mallove said in the above series of videos. The .pdf is entitled "Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and the author is Raleigh Amesbury. This is one well-written and thought-provoking document.

This can only be thought-provoking for people of zero to little knowledge. For anyone who had to deal with real physics and test it in the lab, this is one bunch of idiotic tripe that starts seemingly legit, gets dubious after two and a half pages and then turns idiotic at page six. At page seven, it's sadly obvious he needs medical attention.

I've done multiple measurements involving muons in the lab, using both muons produced by cosmic-rays, and at a few accelerators on two continents. I have colleagues and friends who have flown experiments aboard high-altitude balloons and actual low orbit vehicles. There is absolutely no indication that the behavior of muons AND any particle whatsoever diverges from what's predicted by SR.

So whoever has written the piece quoted here is an utter moron. It's up to the public to determine appropriate characteristics of people who think that this tripe is "thought-provoking".

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is absolutely no indication that the behavior of muons AND any particle whatsoever diverges from what's predicted by SR.

How so?

So we're all on the same page...




wikischool.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is absolutely no indication that the behavior of muons AND any particle whatsoever diverges from what's predicted by SR.

How so?

Just so. We have observed some insane number of muons in the lab, there is no indication. What's hard to get?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading a .pdf right now that brought back to mind for me something Mallove said in the above series of videos. The .pdf is entitled "Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and the author is Raleigh Amesbury. This is one well-written and thought-provoking document.

This can only be thought-provoking for people of zero to little knowledge. For anyone who had to deal with real physics and test it in the lab, this is one bunch of idiotic tripe that starts seemingly legit, gets dubious after two and a half pages and then turns idiotic at page six. At page seven, it's sadly obvious he needs medical attention.

I've done multiple measurements involving muons in the lab, using both muons produced by cosmic-rays, and at a few accelerators on two continents. I have colleagues and friends who have flown experiments aboard high-altitude balloons and actual low orbit vehicles. There is absolutely no indication that the behavior of muons AND any particle whatsoever diverges from what's predicted by SR.

So whoever has written the piece quoted here is an utter moron. It's up to the public to determine appropriate characteristics of people who think that this tripe is "thought-provoking".

Misbehaving particles poke holes in reigning physics theory

www.msnbc.msn.com...-ADeVKS1gA


Thread

reply to post by Americanist


Can you please practice at least some discipline of thought? The post is about muons and special relativity, but you post a link about possible corrections or augmentations to be done to the standard model, which few people doubt will happen.If it were set in stone, we wouldn't have built the LHC.


"Cholesterol can be bad for your health"
"But certain species of hops contain antioxidants"

What a beautiful train of thought (or lack thereof).

reply to post by buddhasystem


I had to return the conversation to thought-provoking for those of us paying attention... Not the "Die Hard's" of excuses and ridicule.

I prefer grape seed extract for now until fullerene is proven safe.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I had to return the conversation to thought-provoking

Non-sequitur rarely serves to "provoke thought". In most cases, it smears it out too thin to be of interest, and results in waste of time.

But feel free to pat yourself on the back.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I had to return the conversation to thought-provoking

Non-sequitur rarely serves to "provoke thought". In most cases, it smears it out too thin to be of interest, and results in waste of time.

But feel free to pat yourself on the back.

You do realize the basis of that article was the movement of certain particles right? Now would be a good time to question your understanding of SR. At any "rate," consider me an anomaly with whatever "spin" you'd like to put on this topic.

Originally posted by Americanist
You do realize the basis of that article was the movement of certain particles right?

...and that it your level of understanding? Sheesh.

I suggest we look instead at the game of billiards. It's based on kinematics and movement of certain round objects. Same difference, right?

Rodin has been interviewed at Tesla Tech 2012. The description of the YouTube video:

Published on Aug 1, 2012 by americanantigravity

www.americanantigravity.com... - Marko Rodin. the inventor of vortex mathematics, describes his two presentations at the TeslaTech 2012 Conference. He briefly discusses the applications of a colleague's work to artificial intelligence as well as extensively describing the applications of vortex mathematics across a variety of disciplines.

Marko Rodin's Vortex Mathematics is a scientific and numerical system involving whole numbers, toroidal constructs and spirituality that he claims describes underlying principles at the foundation of science and physics. Rodin describes Vortex Mathematics as the means by which energy expresses itself mathematically, in a manner without anomalies that describes the dimensional shape and function of the universe as being a toroidally-shaped black hole.

More from AmericanAntigravity:

Marko Rodin on Rodin Coils

August 2nd, 2012
Posted in Video

Marko Rodin on Rodin CoilsMarko Rodin proposes enhancements to the well-known Rodin Coil design that he believes may increase it’s effectiveness. The Rodin Coil consists of a pair of wires wrapped around a doughnut-shaped core in a star pattern. Rodin claims this particular design, deduced from his number theory, yields different electromagnetic properties than any other coil. As a result of the Rodin Coil’s unique construction, it has been heavily featured as a component in a number of alt-science electronic designs.

Rodin also offers speculation into fields other than electromagnetism for the application of “Vortex Mathematics”, a theory developed from mathematical relationships that is purported to explain all mathematical operations, biological genes, and non-decaying energy.

The Rodin Coil is toroidally wound by wires in a pattern consistent with the number patterns discovered by Mr. Rodin. Toroidal shapes wound with wires are commonly used for inductors in electrical circuits, often for use in transformers. However the pattern of winding in a Rodin Coil is radically different from conventional toroidal coils. Experimenters have produced some samples of the Rodin Coil to measure the effects of this new approach to winding wires around a torus.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Sadly, his mental state keeps deteriorating. He's making thing up as he goes. Argon gas going in opposite direction? Like a "celltron, erm, cyclotron"?

All of a sudden he's talking about conductor wires being of variable diameter. Why? Can he provide any theoretical guidance how exactly different must the wire be on the inside and outside? "It's the maximum construct.. contraction". His speech is slurred. Is he on something?

"The mathematical equation that I have, very simple, is the basis for life".

"Higher-dimensional energies".

What a case of verbal diarrhea...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
An important article on Bearden's website is "The Deliberate Discard of Asymmetric Maxwellian Systems, Thus Preventing COP>1.0 and Self-Powering Energy-from-the-Vacuum Systems" by T. E. Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor, 21 June 2007.

(COP is coefficient of performance.)

Foreword

This is the background of how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude COP>1.0 electrical power systems taking their excess EM energy directly from their interaction with the active medium (the active vacuum/spacetime). The ruthless suppression of Nikola Tesla also set the stage for the major cartels continuing to suppress subsequent overunity inventors from the 1890s to the present day.

Introduction

Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer, and at the time his own theory had not been accepted very much at all. Immediately the vectorists – notably Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz – began emasculating Maxwell’s 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns, into the present highly simplified vector algebra of much lower group symmetry.

(Quaternions also have a much higher group symmetry than tensors, for those who believe tensors are the answer). This occurred in the 1880s and 1890s. Heaviside’s equations were tentatively selected as the basis for the new electrical engineering, just being created and being slowly placed into our universities.

To see a glimpse of what can be done in quaternion EM, see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett – one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar – shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this sort of deliberate “shuttling” and control of the potential energy, quite contrary to what is thought possible in our present regular circuits and theory.

From the Barrett paper:

ABSTRACT. Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses primarily the reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of single-body systems. It is fundamentally a nonlinear approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . by T. E. Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor . . .

Leslie R. Pastor is a member of Sterling Allan's New Energy Congress. From Pastor's page on Pure Energy Systems' website, here is a downloadable link to an MP3 of a must-listen interview of Bearden dated December 13, 2009 for independent, free-thinking, hard-working, ambitious electrical engineers:

My Interview With Tom Bearden (December 13, 2009) Washington DC

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Leslie R. Pastor is a member of Sterling Allan's New Energy Congress. From Pastor's page on Pure Energy Systems' website

A link off that page also contains this valuable information:

He claims that the Purviance Pyramid can be an antidote to HAARP, which he thinks was probably involved in the March 11, 2011 Fukushima quake (he's not the only one who thinks that or who has provided interesting evidence to that effect). A week after Fukushima, he said he saw aurora northern lights in LA, and he thinks that maybe the black ops were trying to instigate a similar event there. But he thinks that because of his Purviance Pyramid being in place, the intended quake was mitigated down to just above a 4.0 on the Richter scale.

Regarding the dark purposes of the chemtrails, Ross thinks that they intend the clouds to shield the transforming powers that are emanating from the center of the Galaxy as part of the planetary metamorphosis taking place.

Ross said that recently he had a dream in which a chipmunk came up to him and said: "We did it! We did it! It's safe now!"

So there we go, there is a chipmunk conspiracy that involves emanations from the center of the Galaxy. Great stuff.

And if you want to purchase a Purviance Pyramid in order to foil the nefarious galactic conspiracy, they are readily available at this link. Send money now!

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading a .pdf right now that brought back to mind for me something Mallove said in the above series of videos. The .pdf is entitled "Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and the author is Raleigh Amesbury. This is one well-written and thought-provoking document.

...I've done multiple measurements involving muons in the lab, using both muons produced by cosmic-rays, and at a few accelerators on two continents. I have colleagues and friends who have flown experiments aboard high-altitude balloons and actual low orbit vehicles. There is absolutely no indication that the behavior of muons AND any particle whatsoever diverges from what's predicted by SR.

So whoever has written the piece quoted here is an utter moron. It's up to the public to determine appropriate characteristics of people who think that this tripe is "thought-provoking".

I have no personal experience with muons but I do find your comments about that interesting since you know more about that than I do.

However, I did notice Raleigh Amesbury has the same deficiency as Marko Rodin...neither one seems to understand the most basic mathematical concept...the meaning of the "=" symbol.

Marko Rodin wrote that "all multiples of 9 equal 9" so 18=9, 27=9 and so on. Some apologists then tried to explain to me what he meant was not what he said, but Rodin clearly demonstrated he doesn't know what "=" means.

Now we have Raleigh Amesbury saying that the "=" symbol in the equation E=mc² means proportional to rather than equal. From page 19 of the quoted document:

www.gsjournal.net...

Certainly the most famous equation in science, E=mc², as Albert applied it to mass in
general, without experimental evidence, asserts that the energy contained in a certain unit of
matter, any mass, equals that quantity multiplied by the speed of light squared....

Equations express relationships. The = in this equation really means proportional to, for as an apple cannot equal an orange, so a gram of any mass cannot equal an erg of any energy.

I must agree the author is pretty ignorant. The equation doesn't say a gram of mass equals an erg of any energy. The presence of the c^2 term is what makes it an equality rather than a statement of proportionality. So when we measure energy coming from the sun, we really are saying that the energy we measure is EQUAL to the energy contained in the mass that was lost in the nuclear fusion process. He clearly doesn't even understand the most basic mathematical concepts.

Then he claims the E=mc² relationship has never been experimentally verified. Here is the only recording I've ever heard of Einstein, pointing out it was experimentally verified in 1932:

E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula


So you don't have to know anything about muons to realize Raleigh Amesbury and Marko Rodin don't understand mathematics. They have both demonstrated to us that they don't understand what "=" means, one of the most basic mathematical symbols of all. It's pretty sad, really. And what's even sadder is that anybody who graduated from elementary school and should know that "18=9" is false should know better, yet they still have an interest in this bullocks. There are some truly profound cognitive impairments at work here.