"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Is a quark/photon/electron particles or waves?

As you can easily find out from sources easily available to you, they can be both.

What mechanism in the universe forced different fundamental particles to exist, why a quark (multiple kinds), why electron?

This is unknown at this point in time.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

As you can easily find out from sources easily available to you, they can be both.

I know, but if i only wanted to read by myself i wouldnt come to this site

Can they really be both? or can they only be mathematically and probabilistically described these ways? What are their true natures, what does it mean that a particle of energy exists? how can a particle of energy be a wave? waves dont exist without time, all particles are waves in time ( is that the true meaning of this talk)?

This is unknown at this point in time.

Its bittersweet hearing that from you. Any speculations?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

The earth's magnetic poles causes the earth to tilt on its axis, when the earth is closest to sun it's magnetic north pole repels the earth's magnetic north pole pushing them further apart, this begins an oscillation as the earth moves further away from the sun the difference in strength between the north and south magnetic poles is no longer an issue.

Are you aware that the magnetic polarity of the Sun reverses on an approximately 11 year cycle?

The sun does not reverse polarity, if it did, it would bring all planets into the sun. Gravity brings the earth and sun together and their magnetic field with like poles on the same side pushes them apart.

Jw, does your theory say anything about what the cause/mechanism of gravity may be?

Yes, Gravity is a form of energy which is created by a nuclear reaction. Their are gravity anomalies in the US which prove this, and example would be, The Oregon vortex, Racetrack playa in death valley, my theory also explains why gravity is the weakest form of energy, Gravity also has the same composition of n/s monopoles as the aether which is responsible for creating inertia, centrifugal force.

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Their are gravity anomalies in the US which prove this, and example would be, The Oregon vortex,

So you claim a tourist trap is a gravity anomaly.... love your quality research!

reply to post by LawrenceWippler


This question is about your hypothesis that each monopole has an area near the surface that does not attract or repel.

In effect you're saying that the monopoles are spheres that attract in all directions but up close they don't? How, then, would the attractive force emanating from the monopoles change from no attraction to attraction?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
On January 20, 2013 there was an article on Sterling Allan's website "New Energy Movement launching vetting initiative." The initiative is led by a person by the name of Joel Garbon. The New Energy Movement is a dot org. I hope he succeeds.

I see on the New Energy Movement Facebook page a link to this YouTube video of an interview of Joel Garbon.

The Description:

Published on Jan 21, 2013

Guest this week is Joel Garbon, President of the New Energy Movement (NEM),

www.newenergymovement.org...

His book, co-authored with Jeane Manning, Breakthrough Power: How Quantum-Leap New Energy Inventions Can Transform Our World

www.breakthroughpower.net

He said that the vetters would be paid by a fund from donations from the public. Sounds perfect to me.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

This question is about your hypothesis that each monopole has an area near the surface that does not attract or repel.

In effect you're saying that the monopoles are spheres that attract in all directions but up close they don't? How, then, would the attractive force emanating from the monopoles change from no attraction to attraction?

edit on 02/17/13 by Mary Rose because: Typo

All things in the universe operate under the same principal, the law of attraction, its because all things are composed of n/s monopoles. The sun for example is much cooler on its surface than its corona which is much hotter, the monopole is the same way, its field is weaker on its surface and stronger further away.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Some screenshots:








Is there anything of mathematical significance presented in that sequence in the video?

reply to post by LawrenceWippler


Is that counter-intuitive?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Yes, Gravity is a form of energy which is created by a nuclear reaction. Their are gravity anomalies in the US which prove this, and example would be, The Oregon vortex

Yes, anomalies which defy all attempts to measure them certainly are fascinating:

The Oregon Vortex

However, it is important to note that whatever instrument you use to measure with while inside the affected area you will always measure to be the same height because the instrument of measurement will change in size right along with you.

I know some naysayers will claim it's just an optical illusion, but certainly it's more fun to re-write the laws of physics to explain the way the tape measure contracts in length without traveling at relativistic velocities.

I started thinking about your model, and the "particle of matter". So it's one particle, per element, right? But there are lots of different elements, and the particle is different for each one. So if there were, say, 118 different elements, your model would have at least 118 different particles, one for each element, right?

But is it really one for each element? For example, Uranium has three naturally occurring isotopes, U234, U235, and U238. So would each of these isotopes have a different "particle of matter" in your theory? I think they would have to because the electric charge of the nucleus and therefore the number of monopoles for each would be the same in your theory as I understand it, so the only thing that could explain the different mass is a different "particle of matter" in your theory, right? If not, what makes them different?

If so, doesn't your theory really have more particles than the existing theory? The number of primordial isotopes is something like 289, and if you add up all the other isotopes that have been discovered (Like U232 which is produced in nuclear reactions), there are many other isotopes, so the total is way more than 289, probably in the thousands but I haven't counted them. Each of the tiny little boxes in this diagram are isotopes so you can count them if you wish:

Isotope half-lives

This man, Garrett Lisi, claims there are only something like 226 particles in his theory of everything (he says this a little after 6 minutes into the video):

Have you ever watched this video or seen his theory? Isn't his theory really a lot simpler, with only 226 particles, than yours with over 1000 particles? You say it's only three, but the third particle, the "particle of matter" is not just one particle, but many different particles, (at least one for each element, and probably one for each isotope too), even according to you, right?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

The earth's magnetic poles causes the earth to tilt on its axis, when the earth is closest to sun it's magnetic north pole repels the earth's magnetic north pole pushing them further apart, this begins an oscillation as the earth moves further away from the sun

What oscillation? There is no oscillation as you describe.

The axial tilt of the Earth does not change throughout the year. Consider Polaris.

Yes it does oscillate,

I would have to draw a diagram to show this.

Please don't forget to do this. I would like to see this even though I don't believe it's possible. Perhaps this will become evident to you if you try to diagram this annual oscillation. Many people may not consider this to be important but I do. Your assertion is not only baseless, it is contradicted by all of the visual evidence of which I am aware. Anyway, whatcha got?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is there anything of mathematical significance presented in that sequence in the video?

ImaFungi keeps asking off-topic questions like this is his own personal brain dump, so thanks for trying to post something on topic about mathematics.

Yes, of course there is mathematical significance to many properties of numbers and number sequences. When I put my engineering hat on, and want to take it beyond the realm of mathematics and build something, I'm not seeing the significance, but I'm open-minded enough to look if somebody thinks it can be used for some useful purpose to make something useful or do something useful.

If not, it's a case where I put my sunglasses on, take a sip from my chosen beverage, and say "cool"!
I guess that's significant in some respects, but it won't solve the energy crisis as far as I know, as Rodin seems to claim his sequence will do.

It takes only three particles to build an atom, this atom can be one of many elements, using this model of the atom you can explain all known phenomenon. If you wish to count every particle of matter for every element that's ok, its like saying a gallon of paint = 16 million gallons because of all the different colors.

reply to post by LawrenceWippler

It takes only three particles to build an atom, this atom can be one of many elements, using this model of the atom you can explain all known phenomenon. If you wish to count every particle of matter for every element that's ok, its like saying a gallon of paint = 16 million gallons because of all the different colors.

I'm not sure which is worse, your analogy or the fact that someone starred that mess.

In your model you account for the existence of different elements by what you call a particle of matter which Ed calls a neutral particle of matter. That requires a unique particle for each element, that would be inescapable. even if one were to accept that, you still have no way to account for isotopes.

How's that annual axial oscillation diagram coming?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

The earth's magnetic poles causes the earth to tilt on its axis, when the earth is closest to sun it's magnetic north pole repels the earth's magnetic north pole pushing them further apart, this begins an oscillation as the earth moves further away from the sun

What oscillation? There is no oscillation as you describe.

The axial tilt of the Earth does not change throughout the year. Consider Polaris.

Yes it does oscillate,

I would have to draw a diagram to show this.

Please don't forget to do this. I would like to see this even though I don't believe it's possible. Perhaps this will become evident to you if you try to diagram this annual oscillation. Many people may not consider this to be important but I do. Your assertion is not only baseless, it is contradicted by all of the visual evidence of which I am aware. Anyway, whatcha got?

The diagram posted earlier shows part of this oscillation, notice that the earth's axis is pointing toward the sun one side of the diagram, and pointing away from on the sun on the other side of the diagram. This oscillation is between the magnetic poles, creating an elliptical orbit, the earth axis will remain pointing to Polaris due to the earth's rotation.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

It takes only three particles to build an atom, this atom can be one of many elements, using this model of the atom you can explain all known phenomenon. If you wish to count every particle of matter for every element that's ok, its like saying a gallon of paint = 16 million gallons because of all the different colors.

I'm not sure which is worse, your analogy or the fact that someone starred that mess.

In your model you account for the existence of different elements by what you call a particle of matter which Ed calls a neutral particle of matter. That requires a unique particle for each element, that would be inescapable. even if one were to accept that, you still have no way to account for isotopes.

How's that annual axial oscillation diagram coming?

I view isotopes as separate elements.

The axis in not oscillating, the magnetic poles are.

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
I view isotopes as separate elements.

I suspected you would, so your theory has thousands of particles since there are thousands of isotopes.

Your paint analogy doesn't work, because I can add a little more paint but you said your particle cannot change from one element into another, right?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
They can't, the particle of matter which makes up the atoms core cannot be changed from one element to another.

That sounds nothing like paint.

reply to post by LawrenceWippler

The diagram posted earlier shows part of this oscillation, notice that the earth's axis is pointing toward the sun one side of the diagram, and pointing away from on the sun on the other side of the diagram.

The diagram you said was inaccurate? Let's take a look



departments.jordandistrict.org...

Can you explain exactly what is incorrect? Keep in mind the points a,b,c and d represent the solstices and equinoxes. At a & c the axis is tilted toward and away from the Sun however at b & d there is no tilt toward or away from the Sun, AFAIK.

reply to post by LawrenceWippler

The north pole of the earth is pushed away from the sun.

Why wouldn't the south pole get pushed away from the Sun also?