"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I finally found the gases and vapors quote by seaching under a different word in the quote. It's on page 18.

Still can't find the third one. I think you're misquoting him.

But I'm not. You are grasping the straws, Mary. Indeed, even the quotes that you finally managed to locate are so idiotic that you elected to claim that I made them up with intent to besmirch the genius of Russell. Oh, and speaking of "gases and vapors". Did you also see the part where the liquids are trying to unite with other liquids? Sheesh.

It still fascinates me that one would publish links, steady like a robot, without caring as much as to actually read the material. Pretty lame.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Lame post on your part. People don't necessarily read entire .pdf files. I did not recognize the quotes and the search function did not work reliably.

Your refusal to provide a page for your alleged quote is telling.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Lame post on your part. People don't necessarily read entire .pdf files. I did not recognize the quotes and the search function did not work reliably.

Your refusal to provide a page for your alleged quote is telling.

Telling you what? That I made it up? Please, this is looking more pathetic by the minute. You did find the other two quotes, which was choice nonsense, did you not? Why would I need to make up a stupid sounding quote when there is a whole book full of those?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Why would I need to make up a stupid sounding quote when there is a whole book full of those?

I would have a hard time believing an author really published stuff this stupid if I didn't see it for myself. Even the quote Mary cited about electric harp strings was pretty stupid. I found that quote, and above it he gives a definition of electricity so different from the actual definition of electricity that he may as well define a "rose" as "a four legged mammal that makes a meow sound". It's some of the worst dictionary abuse I've seen.

But as severe as the dictionary abuse is, he's got some pretty extreme cognitive issues. On page 42 of the same book Mary Rose and Buddhasystem are quoting from, he talks about planets in orbit approaching their perihelion being accelerated:

The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it." Why has not this most obvious fact been observed long ago?

I suppose that's because most of us noticed this big ball of light in the sky called "the sun"? I mean c'mon, it's pretty hard to miss that, isn't it? This guy was certifiable.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Coming from someone who has no named elements under their belt, those are pretty daring claims. His contributions to science and understanding far outweigh yours. A likely comparison would fall under T&C violations, so I'll just leave it there.

reply to post by Americanist

I'm not the topic, apparently now Walter Russell is. You have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic and turn to ad hominems of other members. Don't you find it patently ridiculous that Walter Russell would claim "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it."? Don't you realize the other body attracting it is the sun?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

I'm not the topic, apparently now Walter Russell is. You have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic and turn to ad hominems of other members. Don't you find it patently ridiculous that Walter Russell would claim "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it."? Don't you realize the other body attracting it is the sun?

You're unable to grasp the concept of orbital patterns? In your mind you're picturing what again? The model we had in grade school with coat hangers as elliptical rings stuck through styrofoam balls?

What page are you referring to, so I have actual context? I'm a recent study to Russell.

Originally posted by Americanist
What page are you referring to, so I have actual context? I'm a recent study to Russell.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than I already did, so I guess I'll add reading comprehension to the list of skills which you lack.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Coming from someone who has no named elements under their belt, those are pretty daring claims.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm a daring person. In addition, what I see about the alleged claims of Russell's prediction, this is all conjecture. Alphanon, Betanon, Gammanon, and all that crap to Octanon and beyond. You can interpret it in multiple ways and I'm sorry, all that other Octanon stuff didn't really paint out, did it. And, the actual periodic table was invented by a certain Russian a long time before Russell learned to read.

His contributions to science and understanding far outweigh yours.

What sort of understanding can result from that Russell's horsesh!t?

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

I'm not the topic, apparently now Walter Russell is. You have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic and turn to ad hominems of other members. Don't you find it patently ridiculous that Walter Russell would claim "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it."? Don't you realize the other body attracting it is the sun?

You're unable to grasp the concept of orbital patterns? In your mind you're picturing what again? The model we had in grade school with coat hangers as elliptical rings stuck through styrofoam balls?

You never got past the level of seeing the coat hangers and pieces of styrofoam, and missed out on how gravity works in systems like the Solar system. Guess what, there is also real physics beyond K-1, to be studied by those who have the desire and capacity to do so. For some, however, the coat hanger is what the doctor ordered.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
What page are you referring to, so I have actual context? I'm a recent study to Russell.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than I already did, so I guess I'll add reading comprehension to the list of skills which you lack.

Time is of the essence... Not sure what you do for a job, but mine keeps me fairly busy.

reply to post by Americanist

If you don't have time to read the post you reply to, maybe you shouldn't post a reply.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

I'm not the topic, apparently now Walter Russell is. You have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic and turn to ad hominems of other members. Don't you find it patently ridiculous that Walter Russell would claim "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it."? Don't you realize the other body attracting it is the sun?

You're unable to grasp the concept of orbital patterns? In your mind you're picturing what again? The model we had in grade school with coat hangers as elliptical rings stuck through styrofoam balls?

You never got past the level of seeing the coat hangers and pieces of styrofoam, and missed out on how gravity works in systems like the Solar system. Guess what, there is also real physics beyond K-1, to be studied by those who have the desire and capacity to do so. For some, however, the coat hanger is what the doctor ordered.

You must be referring to Arb since I was, and to that I concur... We're not even sure which galaxy our solar system derived from, nor of QG. You stick with the guess work. I'll stick to intuition and common sense.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

If you don't have time to read the post you reply to, maybe you shouldn't post a reply.

Asking for clarification inside questioning counts as a reply, so we're in agreement. Mark your calender on the 4th...

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

I'm not the topic, apparently now Walter Russell is. You have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic and turn to ad hominems of other members. Don't you find it patently ridiculous that Walter Russell would claim "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it."? Don't you realize the other body attracting it is the sun?

You're unable to grasp the concept of orbital patterns? In your mind you're picturing what again? The model we had in grade school with coat hangers as elliptical rings stuck through styrofoam balls?

You never got past the level of seeing the coat hangers and pieces of styrofoam, and missed out on how gravity works in systems like the Solar system. Guess what, there is also real physics beyond K-1, to be studied by those who have the desire and capacity to do so. For some, however, the coat hanger is what the doctor ordered.

You must be referring to Arb since I was, and to that I concur... We're not even sure which galaxy our solar system derived from, nor of QG. You stick with the guess work. I'll stick to intuition and common sense.

What a talent to miss a clear point. Arb told you about a certain celestial body that largely governs the motion of the planets in the Solar System. You ignored that common sense observation -- wholesale.

And if you didn't you'd have to admit that Russell was a village idiot. Planets accelerate by their own volition. Right.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist

 

I'm not the topic, apparently now Walter Russell is. You have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic and turn to ad hominems of other members. Don't you find it patently ridiculous that Walter Russell would claim "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to "attract it."? Don't you realize the other body attracting it is the sun?

You're unable to grasp the concept of orbital patterns? In your mind you're picturing what again? The model we had in grade school with coat hangers as elliptical rings stuck through styrofoam balls?

You never got past the level of seeing the coat hangers and pieces of styrofoam, and missed out on how gravity works in systems like the Solar system. Guess what, there is also real physics beyond K-1, to be studied by those who have the desire and capacity to do so. For some, however, the coat hanger is what the doctor ordered.

You must be referring to Arb since I was, and to that I concur... We're not even sure which galaxy our solar system derived from, nor of QG. You stick with the guess work. I'll stick to intuition and common sense.

What a talent to miss a clear point. Arb told you about a certain celestial body that largely governs the motion of the planets in the Solar System. You ignored that common sense observation -- wholesale.

And if you didn't you'd have to admit that Russell was a village idiot. Planets accelerate by their own volition. Right.

Then what of stars and what of galaxies? Food for thought... Or your spaghetti monster.

reply to post by Americanist

So did you ever figure out the sun is what causes the acceleration of the planets toward their perihelion?
Or are you agreeing with Russell that "The planet accelerates, however, without having another body to 'attract it.' "?

When I was 8 years old, I did have what look like some bent coat hanger wires in my Farquhar globe, that allowed proper positioning of the sun and the moon. It looked something like this:

astronomyclassifieds.com...


It wasn't supposed to be a model of the stars so much as a star map showing what would be visible in the sky, sort of the precursor to Stellarium before Stellarium existed. It's a bit crude compared to Stellarium, but I found it to be accurate in predicting what would be observable in the sky. So I've got nothing against coat hanger wire, if it works, and in this case, it worked well for what it was designed to do. But now I prefer Stellarium which has made the Farquhar globe obsolete.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Russell sounds stupid to you because of your perspective, perhaps? The point is, you provided the reader with no context for your quotes, whereas my post which started this exchange provided the chapter number and title. When asked for context you reply with your sarcastic find it yourself crap.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Electricity is the only source which God makes use of to create this Universe

Perhaps the following is what you misquoted:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Russell sounds stupid to you because of your perspective, perhaps?

No, it's just because Russell does sound stupid, unless one doesn't care about the meaning of the words used, or relation to reality, or their own sanity and/or ability to think, and simply indulges in regurgitating some grand sounding stuff (God, Universe, Vibrations), because this way they can finally feel smart.

The point is, you provided the reader with no context for your quotes, whereas my post which started this exchange provided the chapter number and title.

Unfortunately, as the source goes, the context is equally idiotic. The pattern here is that you are trying to keep me liable for how stupid that stuff is, even though I repeat it verbatim. Well, tough. Here is one more phrase preceding the one I quoted -- you wanted context? Here it comes:

The weak point in this theory is the fact that electromagnetism is not an existent force in Nature; nor are there electro-magnetic fields or magnetic fields.

Feel any better? Then surely the computer at which you are reading this must be a powerful hallucination, since it allegedly works on the principles of electromagnetism.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Electricity is the only source which God makes use of to create this Universe

Perhaps the following is what you misquoted:

No it's not. You see, in desperation, you do another dictionary hijack, (or abuse, as Arb calls it), which is to use common words with a completely different meaning. "Misquote" is to quote text incorrectly, or provide a wrong quote altogether. I did neither of this. I quoted letter for letter and word for word. If you don't like the result, e.g. exposing Russell as a mental case, this is hardly my problem. Maybe it's yours, since you brought this idiot into the thread.

But you don't stop there. You provide a completely different paragraph from Russell, not the one I quoted, and insist that I "misquoted", i.e. I twisted Russel words. I obviously didn't. But wait, let me quote directly from the piece you just provided, because it's hilariously stupid:

cold generates -- generation contracts -- contraction heats

Thanks for the comic effect, Mary

reply to post by buddhasystem


A search will bring up 8 quotes but not yours. You've done sloppy work but you refuse to admit it. That's okay. I'm not surprised. Carry on, BS.