"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Mary Rose


I feel there is room for both relativity and aether. The vortex theory is in support of relativity in respect that a gravity well from planets and black holes are a vortex required for space time to to bend (time dilation) relative to the observer...I spent quite some time looking quite a bit deeper at what Phage pointed out with blue shifts and tried to make a cohesive whole out of it, to the best of my comprehension...

In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies. In Einstein's theory, masses distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. The gravitational force is a fictitious force. There is no gravitational acceleration, in that the proper acceleration and hence four-acceleration of objects in free fall are zero. Rather than undergoing an acceleration, objects in free fall travel along straight lines (geodesics) on the curved spacetime.

Source

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

Correct me if I'm wrong: My post that you responded to is regarding special relativity, but what you're posting about is general relativity, and they're two different things.

reply to post by Mary Rose


No you are correct it is general; however Einstein was heavily criticized for using general relativity heavily in defining special relativity...I seem to recall from a college physics class that some of the criticism claimed general and special to be one and the same thing, or one only seemed valid because the other held it up.

If it wasn't for his famous formula; he might have not had as much support behind him. The very first time I became interested was many years ago in the 5th grade they announced discovering a new 10th planet they dubbed planet X until it could be confirmed. My science book at the time had the watch and twins example of relativity in it, I was fascinated that one twin could leave the planet travel at a given distance and speed; return and to the rocket twin only a year or so passed and the twin left on earth was an old man.

My brain is way too fried reading these 200 and some odd pages, then trying to dive wade through some pettiness, then getting a homework assignment from Phage; his obsession with clarity is a good thing for ats. So I dove into more research from that and derived so many equations I don't want to see a function again for awhile and wrote what I did...the words above it were all the topics I either refreshed on or read for the first time...oh it has a name now for yet again the same or very similar concepts that can be mathematically or derived...lol I think the pickup in in the physics department was show me your math...everyone had to have their own equation or plug in values and then call it something new that sounds special.

So my brain hurts and numbers are starting reverse on sight...here's a couple you've probably seen or even presented too much input to even recall clearly now...but maybe not en.wikipedia.org... if you'd like at a later time when I wake up I'll find a link for the general/special debacle. But I have not slept for over 48 hours and I am in a severe need of sleep...almost regret getting involved with this thread; just when you think you've killed the obsession with particle physics, the sleeplessness begins again

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
No you are correct it is general; however Einstein was heavily criticized for using general relativity heavily in defining special relativity...I seem to recall from a college physics class that some of the criticism claimed general and special to be one and the same thing, or one only seemed valid because the other held it up.

I thought special relativity came first, then general relativity.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

No you are correct it is general; however Einstein was heavily criticized for using general relativity heavily in defining special relativity...

Special Relativity predates GR by some 11 years. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I seem to recall from a college physics class that some of the criticism claimed general and special to be one and the same thing, or one only seemed valid because the other held it up.

You obviously didn't pay any attention in college.

My brain is way too fried

Yes.

reply to post by Mary Rose


My apologies, for being brain fried, lacking sleep, and slipping here and there. As stated I'm rusty in some areas. At your request, I joined the discussion against my better judgement; as stated earlier these subjects used to be my obsession. I managed to escape 15ish years ago...the minor chronological details; are not as relevant to me; as the theories and mathematics behind them, sure at one time...it all mattered; every single last exacting detail of who, when, where. Going back to it; at a behest of the op; only the what and why matter to me...but not even that so much anymore either; it's not my field and just a small interest; that an occasional science journal fills very well.

With that; I will take my leave and apologize for the disruption, to anyone's passion of the subjects. Either way; it hasn't mattered to me for well over a decade, so take what I presented as you wish too.

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness


Thanks for your input.

didnt have time to read the 200 plus pages on this post but vortex mathematics has been the key to my quest for knowledge, it connected all the dots, now all my occult studies are making total sense, i now want to make a book for children to teach them this at a young age, truth is in the math, undeniable and infinite....

Originally posted by bluestorm
didnt have time to read the 200 plus pages on this post but vortex mathematics has been the key to my quest for knowledge, it connected all the dots, now all my occult studies are making total sense

Great, you put "vortex math" and "occult" in the same sentence! I'm totally with you on this one, it's occult rather then math, that's what I've been saying all along.

i now want to make a book for children to teach them this at a young age, truth is in the math, undeniable and infinite....

...or maybe you'll take the high way and avoid damaging brains of young children with this crap.

reply to post by buddhasystem


sorry, I prefer my children to know simple universal facts, not forced feed ignorance thats designed to keep them from attaining truth...

reading back , I should of said ALL my studies, not just my extensive occult ones...

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

sorry, I prefer my children to know simple universal facts

Can you please share simple universal facts, suitable for kids?

Thank you.

1+1 is two no matter where i am in this universe, maybe its called something other than one or two or plus but this truth is universal.. To borrow your signature “It never ceases to surprise me at the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of useful knowledge.” what harm is done by teaching this useful true knowledge? and have you even researched this subject beyond attacking it?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

sorry, I prefer my children to know simple universal facts

Can you please share simple universal facts, suitable for kids?

Thank you.

Fact : Science doesn't have all the answers .



This fact is suitable and appropriate to teach any child imho .

reply to post by bluestorm


How do you discriminate what is truth from what is woo? Wouldn't it be much more valuable to teach children how to do that instead of teaching them what is the truth and what not? Then they can review themselves if these vortex maths hold any truth.

when a certain math equation can go in either direction infinitely, i find a truth in it i cant denounce, in the past ive never been one to say there are truths, instead ive always said i only know that i dont know, but now seeing and understanding this, how can i argue with something that works perfectly? I think its way more useful to teach my children this, then most of what they are taught in math these days.. Galileo famously said that mathematics was the language God used to write the universe. I believe this after understanding vortex math and fractals...

Originally posted by bluestorm
1+1 is two no matter where i am in this universe, maybe its called something other than one or two or plus but this truth is universal.. To borrow your signature “It never ceases to surprise me at the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of useful knowledge.” what harm is done by teaching this useful true knowledge? and have you even researched this subject beyond attacking it?

Well I'm rather underwhelmed by the proclamation of 1+1=2. This fact is already taught really well in schools. My little daughter knows that, and also 12-8=4, and even 3+12=15. Why is this a big deal? Why do you hint at some proselytizing or prophetic mission necessary to teach children 1+1?

Originally posted by 23432
Fact : Science doesn't have all the answers .
This fact is suitable and appropriate to teach any child imho .

It's plain. It's already taught. Why this strikes a religious note in some, I don't know.

And I agree -- science doesn't have all the answers and it never will! At the same time, the crap published in pseudo-science threads here on ATS does not have any answers at all. And science has a few.

Originally posted by bluestorm
when a certain math equation can go in either direction infinitely, i find a truth in it i cant denounce, in the past ive never been one to say there are truths, instead ive always said i only know that i dont know, but now seeing and understanding this, how can i argue with something that works perfectly? I think its way more useful to teach my children this, then most of what they are taught in math these days.. imho

What equation are you talking about? Do you mean for example y=tan(x)?

And what exactly is the contents of this truth? What would (or do) you tell your children exactly? How does it work perfectly? Why do you think it is more usefull than math?

Originally posted by bluestorm
I believe this after understanding vortex math and fractals...

Oh great, you understand vortex math! Fantastic. Now, please explain how this math describes the vortex, its origin and properties. It would be interesting to hear from a person who truly understands.

please since this is a post on vortex math, maybe study this subject a little so i dont have to teach you about it, i highly recommend you do so along with the unified field theory, i only use 1+1 just to say that simple truths can be found in math, once you study this subject then you will see many more undeniable simple truths. im not a religious minded person but i am very excited that so much can be explained by all this.. this is the underpinning geometry of the universe, the kind of stuff i want most definitely want my kids to know... already many are using this formula to produce advanced technologies, by no means would I call it pseudo science...