It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
Rodin is exacting with universal schematics ... Your theory is vague at best.
You also use the term resonance which is the equivalent of surface tension when referencing reality.
Real-world observations
Originally posted by damilo
The Chakras are real. They have had a dramatic impact on my life and the people around as well. Rodin has displayed a theory that might be hard to grasp if you take his words as literal.
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Real-world observations
General Relativity is applied to real world observation, and it allows us to throw satellites up in space. Now in the same world we have nanometers and nanohertz where it doesn't provide worthy explanation.
By measuring a spectacularly small difference in the ticks of two quantum clocks, physicists have proven a pillar of Albert Einstein's theory of gravity to be on firmer footing than ever before.
...
Now, a team led by Holger Müller of the University of California, Berkeley, has measured the time-shifting effects of gravity 10,000 times more accurately than ever before. They show that gravity's effect on time is predictable to 7 parts per billion (H. Müller, A. Peters and S. Chu Nature 463, 926–929; 2010). And they did it using two laboratory clocks with a height difference of just 0.1 millimetres — a set-up that seems quaintly small in this day of big physics.
Why cling to General Relativity, and use it as the basis for arguments then? I find that part carelessness - part hypocrisy.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
Rodin is exacting with universal schematics ... Your theory is vague at best.
I challenge you to demonstrate how my theory is "vague" while it has direct connection to spectral classes of stars and even predicts the existence of black holes (the missing 8th chakra, since the black hole is in fact OUTSIDE of our Universe), while there are exactly 8 gluons forming the color field. Symmetry is of paramount importance in physics, just look up SU(3). Rodin't theory is off by one number and as such is useless. It's not 9, it's 8. Number 8 is considered lucky in Oriental cultures because the ancients could see deeply with their meditation techniques, many of which concentrated on chakras.
You also use the term resonance which is the equivalent of surface tension when referencing reality.
The resonance is an amplifying effect of frequency coming out of emanation point (such as inside a star, or one of the places of power), when it maps onto the fractal structure of space-time in perfect phase.
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Vortex based mathematics is bunk, stupid, and that guy is an idiot.
With regular mathematics I can get the indefinite area under a curve: Integral of e^(2x)*x^2 dx using tabular integration, i can set f(x) to x^2 and derive 2x, 2, and 0 while setting g(x) to e^(2x) I can integrate e^2x/2, e^2x/4, and e^2x/8 resulting in 1/2x^(2e)2x - 1/2xe^(2x) + 1/4e^(2x) plus a constant, and if I want to get the area between two points on the x-axis, I just have to solve for the definite integral.
Can anyone show me how to do this with vortex based mathematics?
Originally posted by Americanist
Your confusion is citing gluons as a real particles
In addition: Structure alters vibrations as frequency goes, Rodin's mapping is contained within 8 as our 3-dimensional framework, and again... You're wholly confused. 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 are planes of existence. 3,6,9 is an energy well whereby pathways are created to border said planes. I've already provided an example of a fractal pattern, so it's put together quite solid in this context. No need for further guess work from you.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Americanist
Your confusion is citing gluons as a real particles
Of course, any one familiar with physics knows that with enough energy, they can be put on the mass shell. They will subsequently fragment, but since we can measure the structure function, you can't say they are not real. They are morphing chakras coming in and out of plane of existence, I thought that was easy to understand.
In addition: Structure alters vibrations as frequency goes, Rodin's mapping is contained within 8 as our 3-dimensional framework, and again... You're wholly confused. 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 are planes of existence. 3,6,9 is an energy well whereby pathways are created to border said planes. I've already provided an example of a fractal pattern, so it's put together quite solid in this context. No need for further guess work from you.
No need for 9. Rodin is wrong and he totally missed the importance of chakras. If you look at the symbols of chakras, they have nothing to do with Rodin's stupid sudoku.
Originally posted by Americanist
That must be your idea of a prank on us.
So they solved QG, with their more accurate time count? Right.
The deeper you dig you'll still find a rhythm.
Originally posted by damilo
Marko Rodin is a head of his time. As the majority is concerned he speaks of things that are to complex for the un-opened mind to comprehend. The black hole part.... that is real.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When Einstein claimed that gravity bends light, if we took this forum back to 1915 and Einstein posted that claim here, I could see myself or buddhasystem or bobathon asking Einstein if this has ever been observed in the real world
Then Einstein would reply that his associate Freundlich was trying to observe an eclipse in Russia to prove his theory with real world observations, but the Russians arrested Freundlich and his team as Russian spies. Then I'd wonder if that was a "dog ate my homework" excuse for not having any real world observation to back up the claim, and I'd have to wait a couple of years before someone else would observe an eclipse and finally prove that Einstein wasn't just another crackpot with a theory that had no connection to real world observations.
How open minded do I need to be? Open minded enough to believe that science doesn't have all the answers yet and there's more to be learned and maybe even some things to be unlearned? I'm that open minded.
Originally posted by damilo
he speaks of things that are to complex for the un-opened mind to comprehend.
How do you KNOW this?
The black hole part.... that is real.
This is a good example of why measuring instruments can be trusted more than flawed human senses. Scientific devices can not only see red whether the operator of the device is color blind or not, but it can even tell what frequency or wavelength of red the light is.
Now take in account that the millions viewing this all are viewing from their perception. Their own reality in which they live. Are they seeing the colors, or are they color blind and unable to see red?
You're contradicting beebs who keeps saying we can't look at his ideas in isolation but as building on the foundation of others. But I can't argue about him being on a completely different level. The question is, does the level he is on have any connection to reality, and if so, what is it?
Rodin is on a completely different level.
Originally posted by Bobathon
You're right, Arb, but I think you've missed the most important difference:
If we'd asked Einstein if it has ever been observed in the real world, he would have said "no."
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by squandered
Welcome to the party, and glad you have made it through the gauntlet relatively unharmed.
Originally posted by squandered
The people who collate various sentences and answer them all in their own chosen context are trolls who will have nothing useful to contribute.
You are defensive as hell, maybe because you feel threatened. You'll deny that, but you'll admit that your 'superior' knowledge is threatened by ideas that you won't get marked on.
That's fine... you are deliberately ignorant.