"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by milkyway12
If you walked up to my professor and said, 27=9, he would look at you like you have mental issues.

Bingo. Thank you for making my point. Rodin is, in my opinion, mentally infirm. His "theory" (and I cringe when I try to use this word in regards to this imbecile) does not produce any "math" or "vortex". It's really on the level of 27=9. There is no math. Or theory. There is Rodin who's nuts. There hasn't been a single evidence that any of his claims are true. When I offered a simple and inexpensive way to test his claims, his followers on this thread declined, which also indicates they are mental. You can't be preaching some incredible, divine, ultimate truth, yet at the same time be unwilling to invest $4 to make a simple measurement demonstrating that it's true.

And of course there are a number of people who are under-educated, and self conscious about that. And driven by their needs to validate themselves they declare that Rodin is a guru, who is "suppressed" by some nefarious forces, and he does possess the power to travel to any corner of the galaxy using a length of copper wire and six AA batteries.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . unwilling to invest $4 to make a simple measurement demonstrating that it's true.

New people to this thread need to understand that BS is incorrect.

How to wind the coil and what materials to use are unclear and the open-source community is working on this.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . that Rodin is a guru, who is "suppressed" by some nefarious forces . . .

Again BS is incorrect.

No one on this thread has suggested that Rodin's technology has been suppressed - only that his work should be interpreted within the context of others, such as Tesla, who have been suppressed.

I think the discovery I made on my thread "curving light waves" is relavent to this discussion. I have made a new quantum theory and an experiment, that should prove the existance of 3D-n wave paths (beyond 3D). I am doing another experiment that might show these waves can also be made by sound. In fact I believe all matter and energy produce these 3D-n waves.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation, and at the end of the book in Appendix B there is a transcript of a dialogue with quantum physicist David Bohm (who died in 1992). The dialogue was first published in ReVision Journal and the editorial notes are by the journal's editor.

This passage made me think of this thread. Is it related?

(Note: My understanding is that "chreodes" are paths.)

Sheldrake, Rupert (2009-09-09). Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation (pp. 255-257). Inner Traditions Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

Bohm: . . . One of the early interpretations of the quantum theory I developed was in terms of a particle moving in a field.

Sheldrake: The quantum potential.

Bohm: Yes. Now the quantum potential had many of the properties you ascribe to morphogenetic fields and chreodes; that is, it guided the particle in some way, and there are often deep valleys and plateaus, and particles may start to accumulate in plateaus and produce interference fringes. Now the interesting thing is that the quantum potential energy had the same effect regardless of its intensity, so that even far away it may produce a tremendous effect; this effect does not follow an inverse square law. Only the form of the potential has an effect, and not its amplitude or its magnitude. So we compared this to a ship being guided by radar; the radar is carrying form or information from all around. It doesn’t, within its limits, depend on how strong the radio wave is. So we could say that in that sense the quantum potential is acting as a formative field on the movement of the electrons. The formative field could not be put in three-dimensional [or local] space, it would have to be in a three-n dimensional space, so that there would be non-local connections, or subtle connections of distant particles (which we see in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment). So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole, and something happening to faraway particles can affect the formative field of other particles. There could thus be a [non-local] transformation of the formative field of a certain group to another group. So I think that if you attempt to understand what quantum mechanics means by such a model, you get quite a strong analogy to a formative field.

Sheldrake: Yes, it may even be a homology; it may be a different way of talking about the same thing.

Bohm: The major difference is that quantum mechanics doesn’t treat time, and therefore it hasn’t any way to account for the cumulative effect of past forms. To do so would require an extension of the way physics treats time, you see.

Sheldrake: But don’t you get time in physics when you have a collapse of the wave function?

Bohm: Yes, but that’s outside the framework of quantum physics today. That collapse is not treated by any law at all, which means that the past is, as it were, wiped out altogether. [Editor’s note: This is the point where, as earlier mentioned, Bohm discusses some of the inadequacies of present-day quantum mechanics—in particular, its incapacity to explain process, or the influence of the past on the present. He then suggests his re-formulations—injection, projection, the implicate order, etc.—that might remedy these inadequacies. And these re-formulations, apparently, are rather similar to Sheldrake’s theories.] You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world. Now I want to say that that process can be understood from the implicate order as this activity of re-projection and re-injection. So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics. It actually deals with process, which quantum mechanics does not, except by reference to an observing apparatus that in turn has to be referred to something else. . . .

The Trinity is a 3D particle/3D-n wave duality formed and interpenertrated by All is One.

For a unifying theory I believe we should look at John T. Nordberg's Grand Unification Theory. Based on harmonic resonance, standing waves and nestled platonics. It is the best explanation for everything I have seen and it fits my idea of 3D-n wave paths as well as including triads and the underlying shape of the universe.

Grand Unification Theory

The Ball-of-Light Particle Model describes all elementary particles as standing, spherical waves composed of three fields: electric, magnetic, and gravitational. The central equation: E cross B = G emphasizes the already known fact that the electric, magnetic and gravitational force fields act at right angles to each other. (Imagine a corner where two walls meet a ceiling.) The relationship between these three fields has been known to exist and is expressed in a widely accepted physics equation known as the Poynting Vector. What is "new," so-to-speak, is to integrate the cross product -- E cross B -- over the surface of a sphere to obtain mass or gravity. This relationship can be seen in Table A.

First, I believe the "one inch" equation that unifies all physics is:

The vector E stands for the Electric field, the vector B stands for the Magnetic field, and the vector G stands for the Gravitational field (not a normal usage). The little arrows above the letters is a physics symbol for "vector" which in physics is a quantity that has both magnitude and direction. This gravitational field vector in my equation is different from the traditional symbols found in physics, specifically gravity, represented by the small "g" (not a vector) and the gravitational field constant represented by a plain big "G". The black "x" stands for the cross product, which in physics is a way of mathematically and geometrically multiplying vectors. Geometrically, this 3-dimensional equation looks like this:

If at first you do not understand this equation, do not worry, you are not alone. To understand it, you first need to understand time -- and that is something that most people don't understand.

Harmonic Core

Compare

Originally posted by primalfractal

to

The Aetheron Flux Monopole Emanations comprise the positive, transparent ÎZÌ axis of the Abha Torus. This is not the traditional Z-Axis of the traditional, Euclidean geometry. The transparent Z-Axis of the Abha Torus is actually a point source from which linear Emanations pour in all spherical directions from the center, as demonstrated by the Dandelion Puff Principle.

from

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil."

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

This guy was a grade A moron. The fact you are calling him a genius is comical.

I pulled your leg... And it apparently worked!

reply to post by buddhasystem


Here's BS trumping up something to say just to post.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Here's BS trumping up something to say just to post.

Well Mary, a new person visits your thread and quickly finds out that based on what they read from Rodin, he is, I quote, a grade A moron. I decide to test their conviction and pretend for a second that I believe Rodin is in fact a suppressed genius, which you what proclaim day in, day out. They point out that if I think that, I'm an idiot. I don't think that, of course.

So there Mary, you have a fresh opinion on "vortex math". Sorry you don't like it much.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No one on this thread has suggested that Rodin's technology has been suppressed - only that his work should be interpreted within the context of others, such as Tesla, who have been suppressed.

Mary, this is what you wrote on page 28:

You really need to stop making statements about anything, including Rodin's work, that is related to suppressed (therefore it is cutting edge) science and technology, because you haven't researched it.

You are on record saying that Rodin's "work" is "related" to "suppressed" technology, it's pretty clear. So when you say right here that No one on this thread has suggested that Rodin's technology has been suppressed, you are being disingenuous.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . unwilling to invest $4 to make a simple measurement demonstrating that it's true.

New people to this thread need to understand that BS is incorrect.

How to wind the coil and what materials to use are unclear and the open-source community is working on this.

Do you realize that you just invalidated all of Rodin's statements? Effectively you are saying in plain English that his "math" is worthless. He is on record saying that he has found a path of least resistance for the electrons to follow. Here you are saying that he has not, since it it, I quote, "unclear". You can't have it both ways, Mary.

Originally posted by primalfractal
For a unifying theory I believe we should look at John T. Nordberg's Grand Unification Theory.

I looked at his video, and concluded he doesn't understand simple geometry. Look at his sketch:

www.grandunification.com...

Traditional physics implies that the magnetic field would wrap around the sphere in the same direction as the wire in the first graphic above. This is wrong.

This diagram provides some clues about what's going on in his experiment, but he overlooks the clues. When the current enters the sphere, he models both the current flow and the magnetic field as if it is going through a fat wire, and then he uses this model as a supposed model of mainstream physics and claims this shows mainstream physics is wrong. It's not, it's his model that's wrong, because it's not a fat wire, it's a sphere.

He even draws another diagram showing the current flow on the surface of the sphere here, but he still doesn't accept his own clues in his own diagram:


Now, take for example his current arrow on the top left. Which direction is the current flowing initially? Nearly straight up, right? And the top right current arrow, where does it end? With the current going almost straight down, right? So he has correctly drawn the current paths showing it flows in very nearly 180 degree opposing directions at the beginning and end of the journey through the sphere, but he completely fails to take his own current drawing into account in making his model of a fat wire where the only direction of current flow is left to right. There are up and down components to the current flow as well which are not considered in his previous diagram. He shows this, but somehow, he overlooks it. How is this possible?

Is it any wonder that he thinks he needs a new model of physics to explain why the compasses point in different directions at opposite ends of the sphere? We don't need a new model of physics, we need him to correctly interpret his own diagrams and apply that to the current model, which will then explain his results.

To put it in the context of his video, here's a sketch of his setup:

www.grandunification.com...


This diagram is rotated 90 degrees from his other diagram so take that into account. Now the current is flowing mostly left and right as it enters and exits the sphere. And what effect does this left and right flowing current have on a compass? It's shown in this diagram, the top compass points one way and the bottom compass points in the opposite direction:

Magnetism


As you can hopefully see if you have good spatial perception, this shows the direction of current flow at the bottom of his sphere but a bit to the right. It shows a compass above it and below it will point in opposite directions, in accordance with the right hand rule. There is no need to introduce a left hand rule as he proposes. Some of his other ideas are even more preposterous but this is hopefully a simple enough misunderstanding on his part that you should have a clue this is not the guy who understands the secrets of the universe that everyone else has missed. He's the one who models a sphere as if it's a fat wire and then uses his incorrect model to claim mainstream physics is wrong? I read some of his other ideas for the entertainment value, and some are much worse than this.

reply to post by primalfractal


That equation already exists and is called the poynting vector: en.wikipedia.org...

Its actually old well known mainstream physics (though of course with the correct notation and an actual understanding of its meaning and use).

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Sterling Allan has posted a story about Daniel Nunez, "Directory:Unification Coil by 1StopEnergies"

Streamed live on Oct 5, 2012 by Daniel Nunez

This video is a recording of a live test aired to demonstrate the stability of our system over the course of three hours. During the video, we adjust the scope and run the coil for a brief moment without a load; showing that by powering the lights, we are raising our efficiency. We also adjust the view on the scope in order to show the phasing between the input and output signals; yellow as the input and blue as the output. At the very least, we are viewing one of the world's most energy efficient lighting sources. Thank you all for your support, energy, and donations; you truly make a difference in driving this work into the future. Blessings.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

At the very least, we are viewing one of the world's most energy efficient lighting sources.

LED's are very efficient sources of light, even more efficient than fluorescent which in turn is more efficient than incandescent.

Will LED Light Bulbs Best Your CFLs and Incandescents?

The Department of Energy estimates that replacing regular light bulbs with LEDs could potentially save 190 terawatt-hours annually (pdf)—the equivalent of lighting over 95 million homes.

The world will be switching over to a lot more LED lighting as the initial prices become more attractive because of this energy savings.

Unfortunately for Nunez, while incandescent lights are inefficient, they are the easiest to use in experiments like this because they are the closest to having linear performance in the voltage/current relationship V=IR where R is a resistive load, like an incandescent bulb which is mostly resistive.

Because LEDs are so non-linear, they are probably the worst choice for an experiment like this, because you won't get an accurate measurement of the power used by the LEDs by looking at these meter readings, due to their non-linear performance. The V=IR equation can't be applied as it appears Nunez is trying to do because the LEDs are not a resistive load, they are semiconductors, and this requires different math which is not as simple.

So in all likelihood what we are seeing is 14 watts of power in, and 14 watts of power out which is a combination of light and a small amount of heat. Nothing to write home about in the experiment, except for the fact that indeed LEDs do give off a relatively large amount of light for a small amount of energy in, and that is known far beyond the circle of Nunez fans.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Because LEDs are so non-linear, they are probably the worst choice for an experiment like this, because you won't get an accurate measurement of the power used by the LEDs by looking at these meter readings, due to their non-linear performance. The V=IR equation can't be applied as it appears Nunez is trying to do because the LEDs are not a resistive load, they are semiconductors, and this requires different math which is not as simple.

Arb, that Nunez guy just loves using non-linear load type, because it gives him ample opportunities to fool the less educated among us. In another example he's connecting a neon bulb to the coil, and boy is this one non-linear beast, also having strong hysteresis properties! Same applies to the iron core, by the way.

Here's one other video of his, and I commented on this page a long time ago:


As usual, Nunez deflects. It's hilarious that he does register a reading that explains what he sees, but discards it right away under false pretenses. It's so much more cool to pretend you made a discovery of some sort. Physics is boring to Nunez.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You mentioned previously that you commented on one of his videos, but you didn't say which one and he had so many I didn't feel like hunting for it, so thanks for posting that, as I was curious to see what you said.

Any video that begins with "hello everybody, today I wanted to break some laws of physics...." probably won't end well.

The REAL laws of physics can NEVER be broken. The best a person can hope to show in an experiment is that our understanding of the laws of physics doesn't match the real laws of physics, but as your comments suggest, it's far more common for someone making such claims to actually demonstrate that they don't fully grasp our understanding of the laws of physics.

And I confess that I too sometimes type "ration" when I mean "ratio". I have no confusion about the words or their meanings, but there must be some kind of neural path established in my brain that since many words end in -ion, somehow that typing sequence gets triggered when I type the "io" in "ratio", and I end up with an "n" at the end that I didn't really want. I usually catch it but not always since "ration" passes the spell check, and sometimes I type too fast and don't proofread carefully enough. It's one of those things I look at and wonder "how does that happen"? It rarely happens anymore because now I know to check that word more closely, but I ask for mercy in advance should it happen again.

I have to wonder if he DID try incandescent bulbs and didn't get any interesting results, so maybe that's how he ended up testing non-linear loads so he could fool himself and others?

It wouldn't hurt him to study physics enough to know if he's really breaking the laws of physics as we know them, before he makes such claims, but apparently it's not uncommon for people to proclaim their misunderstanding of the laws of physics as evidence that they've broken them.

Originally posted by -PLB-
That equation already exists and is called the poynting vector: en.wikipedia.org...

Did you read the post you're responding to?

Originally posted by primalfractal

. . . The relationship between these three fields has been known to exist and is expressed in a widely accepted physics equation known as the Poynting Vector. What is "new," so-to-speak, is to integrate the cross product -- E cross B -- over the surface of a sphere to obtain mass or gravity. This relationship can be seen in Table A.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I did and that's why I focused on the experiment in his video, because he uses that to support his claim that everything PLB and I say is wrong because we believe in the standard right-hand rule which doesn't match his experiment.

So by showing he used the model of a fat wire rather than the model of a sphere to visualize magnetic fields around a sphere, I had hoped to demonstrate that what he says about mainstream being wrong about the poynting vector is as flawed as his experiment. Much of what he claims doesn't even make any sense, like "time is defined as the speed of light". But the speed of light has units of distance divided by time, so he's just really confused.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Pretty sure i stated i didnt read the thread and it is very long. However, it took two seconds to confirm his theory was dead in the water. I simply gave my opinion on it. You will hear my opinion (if you read it) or you will move on, whatever floats your boat.

I also was not trying to disrespect Rose in any way or any of the posters in this thread.

It just didn't take long to discredit his theory; I am more class room oriented so if I couldn't present this work for a thesis to a scientific board, why would I even work on the project? You can get outside investors, but science needs exact algorithms that experiments can be built upon, otherwise; you have nothing except imagination. For example, E=MC^2 from that we can formulate E^2 - |P|^2C^2=M^2oC^4 (If i remember correctly). If you cant form an algorithm for your theory, you're doing it wrong. You just cant simply say 27=9 because it is the only correct numbering system.

100 = Purple.

Sorry Rose! lol

It's just hard to read his other proposed concepts if he got one of his underlying principles so .... hmm, i don't have a word for it.

Again, i am sorry Rose and i mean no disrespect to you. You seem very smart ( i wouldn't be surprised if you were an actual researcher ), so i am sure you can accept my opinion without them hurting your feelings. Science isn't meant to be pretty, we are all simply searching for the truth and we have no idea what that truth is, we can just guess. Best guess that makes sense, wins. That was always on the board in lecture.