"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.

I found it in 2 minutes. It's not much past the beginning of the book. Sheesh.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.

I found it in 2 minutes. It's not much past the beginning of the book. Sheesh.

Mary, you see -- there are members here like Arb, who can actually read.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Are you being cute? Like a child? You found it but you're going to play a game and not give the page?

At this point, the point is modus operandi and not the context of the Russell quote.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I could give you the page numbers, but that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

Too bad you're here to have fun.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Are you being cute? Like a child? You found it but you're going to play a game and not give the page?

Mary, you complimented yourself on your (non-existent) research skills on more than one occasion, I believe. So don't be surprised that some people will take you up on that, for whatever reason. Own it.

At this point, the point is modus operandi and not the context of the Russell quote.

Wait, make up your mind. I thought you wanted some "theory" to be discussed here, then when it became plain obvious that this "theory" is mumbling of a mentally unstable person, you accused me of faking the quotes, and by the way Mary, you never apologized to me for these FALSE ACCUSATIONS. Then when you finally read the first 15 pages of the source provided (which you should have done in the first place), you found the quotes (most of them, as your reading comprehension skills permitted), and it became obvious that I didn't fake anything after all. You then started complaining that I took this quotes out of context. When the context was provided and it still looked like coming out of lunatic asylum, you are now saying the context doesn't matter. You say one thing on one page and something different on the other.

No excuse.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I could give you the page numbers, but that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

Too bad you're here to have fun.

In this thread? Definitely. What else to do here? There are other threads where I post to discuss something interesting, or try to learn, and it works fine. Here, in this thread, I see something like "gases are rising to seek other gases", "liquids are seeking liquids", "electromagnetism is not an existent force in Nature" and if you put enough copper wire around a plastic toy, you will travel to any location in the Galaxy and eliminate all decease on our planet (I couldn't make this one up, I swear). And number 9 is Dark Matter. Just a lot of comic stuff, really.

From page 138:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I don't know. I see you've posted five observations, but to be honest, I'm not interested in reading and researching them.

Why? Instinctively, I know that there was no beginning to the universe, because if there were to be a beginning, then how can we explain how whatever made the beginning happen, got here?

The universe is infinite works for me.

Listening to the video again, I learned a new term: Biocentrism. Interesting. Also mentioned was plasma cosmology. These are the theories I'm interested in.

The video made it clear that the LHC, which took 16 years to build at the cost of $10 billion (is that figure too low?), has been called the "Big Bang Machine" and that the search for the "elusive" Higgs boson was for the purpose of finding that particle that set off the Big Bang. (In addition to trying to prove string theory.)

Are you saying that, no, that's not what CERN scientists have been trying to do there?

I was reminiscing this morning about being called a hypocrite on this thread. (Oh the joys of ATS.)

Using google advanced search I pulled up that quote to refresh my memory of what I had said that resulted in the name-calling.

I had forgotten about this new term "biocentrism." Reading the Wikipedia link inspires me:

Biocentrism (from Greek: βίος, bios, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") — also known as the biocentric universe — is a concept proposed in 2007 by American Doctor of medicine Robert Lanza, a scientist in the fields of biology and regenerative medicine.[1][2][3] The theory espouses that biology is the central driving science in the universe, and sees an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. The theory states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around. Biocentrism asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism tries to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.[4][5][6]

Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.[7]

Yeah let's focus on life and biology to find a unified theory. If we can get a unified theory maybe suppressed technology will inevitably be released to the public.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I had forgotten about this new term "biocentrism." Reading the Wikipedia link inspires me:

life creates the universe rather than the other way around.

Life creates its own perception of the universe, that point cannot be disputed. But a lifeform's perception of the universe, and the universe, are two different things.

In some sense it's very easy to disprove the notion. Let's say two lifeforms perceive the universe in two slightly different ways. Does this mean that each one lives in a different universe because they perceive it differently?

This topic has been explored in depth, and the example the authors use is the perception of color, which is subjective to the lifeform (some people are even color-blind). But they point out that instruments show light has properties independent of the lifeform's perception of color:

Biocentrism Demystified

There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an experiential truth – that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

Vinod Wadhawan and Ajita Kamal have hit the proverbial nail on the head, with that perspective. The rest of their article is good too but it's far too long to post here, but worth a read for anyone who is objectively interested in this topic.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Biocentrism (from Greek: βίος, bios, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") — also known as the biocentric universe — is a concept proposed in 2007 by American Doctor of medicine Robert Lanza . . .

This guy Lanza may be on to something: Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.

reply to post by Mary Rose

"may be"? He IS onto something. He knows how to sell books by telling people what they want to hear. Tell people they are important, and you'll sell books.

But none of the reviews I've read of the book whether 1, 3 or 5 stars have said he fulfilled his promise of a "Theory of everything". My previous post cites a source confirming the mixture of partly true claims with partly false claims. And I've found nobody who thinks his book has advanced science. While Deepak Chopra thinks it's "Original and Exciting", I'm not even sure how true that is, as many of these anthropocentric philosophical concepts like idealism are ancient, and he apparently has little or no new evidence in support of these ideas. As this article points out, the idea is old:

Biocentrism Demystified

In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists, the mind creates all of reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a brand of quantum mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this idea makes Darwin’s theory of the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant. Both these men, although they come from different backgrounds, have independently expressed these ideas before with some popular success. In the article under discussion their different styles converge to present a uniquely mystical and bizarre worldview, which we wish to debunk here.

And they proceed to debunk Lanza's claims.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, the Wikipedia article you cited also contains this:

In USA Today Online, theoretical physicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight."

And in another analysis (already quoted)

In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution.

Yawn.

I frankly think that the notion of "theory of everything" is so grand that it does deserve scrutiny. Any theory results in certain hypotheses that can be tested against what I like to call "reality". For example, physics can predict that a certain combination of conductors and semiconductors will form a working radio.

I seriously don't understand what the fuss is about. Idealism as a school of thought is pretty ancient and it didn't really help much to advance natural sciences.

More on sound vs. electricity, from Lyne, William (2012-04-09). OCCULT ETHER PHYSICS: Tesla's "Ideal Flying Machine" and the Conspiracy to Conceal It (Kindle Locations 560-584). Creatopia/Wm. Lyne. Kindle Edition:

Low and High Frequency Electrostatic Potentials And Tesla’s Wireless Transmission of Energy

Low frequency radio waves can pass through solid bodies, and tend to “hug the earth”, while high frequency waves don’t readily penetrate solid bodies, causing a “skin effect” on them, and don’t “hug the earth”, but tend rather to travel outward away from the earth in straight lines. In his Colorado Springs Experiments, Tesla was the first person to investigate high voltage waves of high and low frequency, and their terrestrial, atmospheric and solid-body effects. But remember, Tesla was working with a completely new type of wave, not electromagnetic ones but longitudinal pressure (sound) waves in the ether. The results of these experiments were so farreaching, that whatever was said in current science journals about them had little effect, because they left other scientists so dumbfounded that they were paralyzed by mis-comprehension. This is not taught in electrical engineering schools.

The basic difference between Heinrich Hertz’ 'transverse' waves and Tesla’s longitudinal waves is that Tesla’s waves were actually electrostatic mechanical compression waves in the ether. Tesla actually said that what Hertz was observing was the same longitudinal pressure waves. In 1934, Tesla stated (Possibilities of Electrostatic Generators, Scientific American), speaking of the electrode on his wireless tower erected on Long Island in 1902, “It was to be charged to 30,000,000 volts by a simple device for supplying static electricity and power.” Examination of the patent (# 1,119,732, filed Jan. 18, 1902) shows “coil B” is a Tesla coil tuned to one-quarter wavelength, which produces rapidly-varying (D.C.) electrostatic potentials, resulting in sound waves in the ether, not electromagnetic waves. This requires a certain minimum high frequency, below which you get A.C. This phenomenon was documented in the 1st ed. of Space Aliens From the Pentagon (The Electromagnetic Interaction, R. L. Armstrong & J. D. King, PrenticeHall, 1973): “A dipole which is tuned to 3/8 (or ¼) wavelength, will continue to throw out energy even when the conditions are reversed, because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution”. It also produces the D.C. “brush” discharge. High frequency longitudinal waves also make it possible to project forceful mechanical waves to a specific, distant point. Tesla also developed a method with his special aluminum hemispherical bulb for sending waves or 'heavy currents' along a special “carrier beam” of U.V. or similar high frequency radiation which we don’t know the exact nature of.

Powerful pressure (mechanical) long waves, carried directionally to a distant point, can in turn carry higher frequency waves superimposed on it, to deliver the high frequency exciting energy at the powerful long-wave peaks. These “sound waves” are apparently converted back into electrical energy by an appropriate Tesla receiver (or maybe just a conductor) at the target zone. This appears to have been the basis for Tesla’s “Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires” invention . . .

reply to post by Americanist


Great video, impressive! And my favorite brand of oscilloscope is in it.

But how dare you bring real physics in this thread that's dedicated to various silly and nonsensical notions? What does it have to do with proper intonation of the name of God? Or implosion of space-time in a plastic donut?

Originally posted by Americanist

I guess there's a reason why the terms and conditions require people to state how a video relates to the topic of the thread when they post it...because here's an example of a video posted in violation of the T&C where I have absolutely no idea how it's germane to the topics of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

It is kind of a cool video, but there are already some other threads about this topic on ATS:

Acoustic levitation of small beads and water drops
The person who posted the same video in that thread actually bothered to write a little bit about the video.

I haven't heard Rodin say that acoustic levitation is caused by invisible 9's holding up the droplets, or did I miss that?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This video is in response to an earlier post of mine... Pilot Waves/ Silicon droplets/ Double-Slit.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This video is in response to an earlier post of mine... Pilot Waves/ Silicon droplets/ Double-Slit.

But you do understand that it has nothing to do with double slit, right? And that it has nothing to do with pilot waves?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This video is in response to an earlier post of mine... Pilot Waves/ Silicon droplets/ Double-Slit.

But you do understand that it has nothing to do with double slit, right? And that it has nothing to do with pilot waves?

And in what alternate Universe do you reside? Better question, what type 'media' do we reside in for waves to travel?

Originally posted by Americanist
And in what alternate Universe do you reside? Better question, what type 'media' do we reside in for waves to travel?

You mean air? That would be the medium involved in the acoustic levitation experiment.

No such medium is required to perform the double slit experiment with light, or electrons, so if there is a relationship, maybe you should explain what it is, instead of accusing others of living outside reality.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Lyne, William (2012-04-09). OCCULT ETHER PHYSICS: Tesla's "Ideal Flying Machine" and the Conspiracy to Conceal It

Under the section "An Electrostatic Charge Carried Around":

. . . A startling proof that Tesla's sound waves work in the free ether, was Tesla’s electro-mechanical plate suspensions in his laboratory in 1898. ^26 . . .

26 F.B.I. Papers, (1943), disclosed through the Freedom Of Information, in the statement of Marguerite Merrington. The FBI disclosure documents also show that the contents of Tesla’s safe, two truckloads of papers and apparati, 75 packing crates and trunks and another 80 large storage trunks were all removed and stored in the warehouse of the Custodian of Alien Properties in New York in 1943.