"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
That example is so extreme that it's meaningless.

The claim that the rotation of the Earth is caused by magnets coming from the sun seems equally absurd to me as the claim that the wheels on my car are turning because of hamsters.

They both share an equal amount of evidence supporting them: zero. I'm not sure why you see such a difference.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The claim that the rotation of the Earth is caused by magnets coming from the sun seems equally absurd to me as the claim that the wheels on my car are turning because of hamsters.

The gaps in mainstream science theory because the Standard Model is inadequate should indicate that there may be some inaccuracy in the theory already officially accepted.

Are you stating the premise exactly correct? Maybe you're leaving out nuances. I don't know. Right now I'm focusing on the generality that what is absurd to you could be because there's something you don't know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
They both share an equal amount of evidence supporting them: zero. I'm not sure why you see such a difference.

Why I see such a difference? Difference between what and what?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why I see such a difference? Difference between what and what?

The two claims in the sentence preceding that statement. You said my claim was meaningless, but somehow you're not drawing the same conclusion about Leedskalnin's claim and I don't understand why.

Sure there are gaps in our models. I'm sure new discoveries will be made that will improve our understanding and fill some of those gaps, and may open new mysteries. But our models are built on evidence from observation and experiment.

There is no evidence the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun.

www.rexresearch.com...

North and South Pole magnets are not only holding together the earth and moon, but they are turning the earth around on its axis. Those magnets which are coming form the sun are hitting their own kind of magnets which are circulating around the earth and they hit more on the East side than on the West side, and that is what makes the earth turn around.

I asked you before, if you don't call a claim with no evidence to support it delusional, then what do you call it?

There is no evidence the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There isn't... not yet anyway.

Who knows what will be discovered. I think its good to keep an open mind and not call something absurd just because the observation hasn't happened yet.

If (Big IF) it is caused by magnets coming from the Sun, maybe it has something to do with the recently discovered Magnetic Portals??

I don't know... just the first thing that came to mind.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The claim that the rotation of the Earth is caused by magnets coming from the sun seems equally absurd to me as the claim that the wheels on my car are turning because of hamsters.

Okay I will study the link you provided and also think about other alternative science I've read lately about the sun and see whether I can debate you on that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Okay I will study the link you provided and also think about other alternative science I've read lately about the sun and see whether I can debate you on that.

It would also help if you studied some physics books to be able to see both sides of the debate. The material in physics books is supported by observation and experiment...and much of what is in that link I posted does not have such support...so I'm not sure it's really worthy of "study" as you call it.

I do try to keep and open mind and read non-mainstream sources in addition to mainstream sources, but it's really hard to find non-mainstream sources that have good evidence.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The material in physics books is supported by observation and experiment...and much of what is in that link I posted does not have such support...

The material in physics books is supported by the interpretation of observation and experiment that has been allowed into the books.

In my opinion interpretation is key. Two scientists can participate in the same experiment and disagree on the outcome.

It is alternative interpretation that I will be comparing with the official story.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Care to back that up with a quote?

Also, it's okay with you for someone to start something but expect a calm, civil response instead of a like response?

Originally posted by MamaJ

There is no evidence the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

There isn't... not yet anyway.

There will never be, for the following reason:

There are a few conservation laws tested to a high degree of accuracy. While they will never be immune to scrutiny and even more testing, looking at this topic in mechanics titled "conservation of angular momentum", I see no reason to suspect that in classical mechanics, this law will ever fail. And that's the explanation of the rotation of our planet. It slows down a little bit because of the tidal effects and dissipation of energy related to that, but that's the reason in a nutshell. To even assume there is an external agent needed to studiously keep turning the planet on its axis is an admission of being ignorant with regards to something we know with a great deal of precision.

Who knows what will be discovered. I think its good to keep an open mind and not call something absurd just because the observation hasn't happened yet.

See the above. The "tiny magnets" thing is not dissimilar to the following:

"Gasoline you use to power your car possesses its energy because it contains tiny 'fire jinns', the elemental force of nature. When the spark plug fires, it causes tickling sensation in the jinns and makes them laugh. This causes the rise of pressure in the cylinder and pushes the pistons, hence propelling your car".

Is is possible the tiny fire jinns are eventually discovered? Frankly, who knows. At the same time, I declare any discussion of same (the tiny jinns) as truly idiotic. Now extrapolate this to "tiny magnets".

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The claim that the rotation of the Earth is caused by magnets coming from the sun seems equally absurd to me as the claim that the wheels on my car are turning because of hamsters.

I don't see that claim on the rexresearch.com page.

Are you talking about this post of mine:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I’m reading the 51 page .pdf file “Magnetic Current” by Ed Leedskalnin.

The .pdf is available at freeenergynews.com: "Index of /Directory/Magnets/Leedskalnin."
I noticed that Leedskalnin says on page 25 of 51 that the North and South Pole magnets are the “cosmic force.” He said they hold together the earth and everything on it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't see that claim on the rexresearch.com page.

I gave you the exact quote, and browsers have a built-in function to find text. Just put some text from the quote like "makes the earth turn" in the browser find function and it takes you right to the quote...I told you how to do this before and you explained you already knew how to do it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I did search using control find.

I'll try again.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'll try again.

You're talking about this:

North and South Pole magnets are not only holding together the earth and moon, but they are turning the earth around on its axis. Those magnets which are coming form the sun are hitting their own kind of magnets which are circulating around the earth and they hit more on the East side than on the West side, and that is what makes the earth turn around. North and South Pole magnets make the lightning, in earth’s North hemisphere the South Pole magnets are going up and the North Pole magnets are coming down in the same flash. The North lights are caused by the North and South Pole magnets passing in concentrated streams, but the streams are not as much concentrated as they are in the lightning. The radio waves are made by the North and South Pole magnets. Now about the magnet size. You know sunlight can go through glass, paper and leaves, but it cannot go through wood, rock and iron, but the magnets can go through everything. This shows that each magnet is smaller than each particle of light.

He's inferring that, isn't he, from his observation of magnetism in his experiments?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He's inferring that, isn't he, from his observation of magnetism in his experiments?

How did you come to that conclusion? What is the method or path of inference between his experiment and the claim?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'll see if I can paraphrase and list a sequence of events.

reply to post by buddhasystem



Wouldnt we ideally like to continuously refine and define our understanding of the principles and mechanics at work to make the universe work? isnt that what science is? So according the laws of conservation of angular momentum, the reason the earth is rotating and revolving is because: A giant molecular cloud collapsed forming the sun and this cloud was revolving around the center black hole of the milky way, and rotating itself, and so this cause the sun to coalesce rotationally from gravity, and left over debris from the molecular cloud that was not used in the sun began orbiting the sun and coalescing under its gravity to form planets, and so earth is rotating because its always been rotating. Do the planets orbit the sun, making a flat disc of planetary orbits that pass in front of the suns path? The sun sends off a massive amount of energy towards the earth at all times, is it possible this energy interacts with earths magnetic field in a way to influence rotation or anything? Do stars orbit (spiral) in a galaxy because of the gravity of the center black hole (as if the black hole is a star, and the stars are the planets in a solar system), where is the force coming from that is acting on the sun to keep it traveling (dark energy?)?





also can you reply to this post if you ever get a chance: www.abovetopsecret.com...]post by ImaFungi

The first part of you post makes sense, the second does not:

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Wouldnt we ideally like to continuously refine and define our understanding of the principles and mechanics at work to make the universe work? isnt that what science is?

Well yes, why are you questioning this?

So according the laws of conservation of angular momentum, the reason the earth is rotating and revolving is because: A giant molecular cloud collapsed forming the sun and this cloud was revolving around the center black hole of the milky way, and rotating itself, and so this cause the sun to coalesce rotationally from gravity

I wouldn't go as far as to infer the black hole on all this, but if you start scattering clouds and what not, off of each other, you'll end up with things spinning.

The sun sends off a massive amount of energy towards the earth at all times, is it possible this energy interacts with earths magnetic field in a way to influence rotation or anything?

This needs to be qualified. It might be possible, but it's not causing Earth to rotate. Further, it's not magnets. Even further, there is not much asymmetry in the dipole type of the magnetic field that Earth has.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
also can you reply to this post if you ever get a chance: www.abovetopsecret.com...]post by ImaFungi

That was directed at buddhasystem but I watched the video and I didn't exactly follow the discussion...part of it sounded like buddhasystem's hypothetical fire jinns, with talk about some god who's not really god, and other parts remind me of the Higgs field, though they didn't call it that by name. Seems like the Higgs model is looking pretty favorable based on what I've read about the experimental evidence.

Higgs Boson Discovery Has Been Confirmed

I don't recall reading about the Higgs boson in Mr. Whippler's model, so I have no idea how he would account for these experimental results.

reply to post by buddhasystem



I was not talking to you.... nor do I want to.

When you have a paper to review, let me know. I may consider talking to you then.

As of now, your words mean nothing to me.

Originally posted by buddhasystem




I wouldn't go as far as to infer the black hole on all this, but if you start scattering clouds and what not, off of each other, you'll end up with things spinning.

Yes maybe not the black hole itself. it all may be connected in a mutually causal relationship, the swirling revolving stars in a spiral galaxy cause a black hole, and in turn the black hole causes them to swirl... But I guess im questioning how a spiral galaxy forms in general, and how and why the stars are locked in relative positions from one another ( same constellations for thousands of years) and locked in revolutionary orbits. Where is the force coming from that keeps the sun orbiting the milky-way (and all stars orbiting it). Can a body stand relatively still in interstellar space (compared to the revolutions/orbits of all stars), or will some force drag it along into spiral/revolution?

This needs to be qualified. It might be possible, but it's not causing Earth to rotate. Further, it's not magnets. Even further, there is not much asymmetry in the dipole type of the magnetic field that Earth has.

Ok so the sun is sending a massive amount of electromagnetic energy over the earth including charged particles right? cant these charged particles exhibit a force on the magnetic field?

Also it keeps me up at night thinking about EM radiation (yes I have read wiki explanation 50 times). Do you have a good Idea on how EM radiation travels through the universe, what it is, where it comes from? I know it is produced from an accelerated charge or a change in a charges direction of travel. When EM radiation is emitted/produced does the system that produced it lose energy and mass? or is the EM radiation equal to the energy that was involved in accelerating the charge? If the EM radiation is equal to the energy that was involved in accelerating the charge and is not a lose of matter, or an ejection of matter from a system including a charged particle then I have never really heard a satisfactory explanation of how the event of a charged particle shifting in relation to another, can create a ripple of energy that is not made of the charged particles, but is made kinetic energy and in a vacuum will never exhaust itself...it just doesnt make sense. I hope you can clarify.