"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

You don't know these things are lies

They are, though, aren't they.

Salk died in 1995. The most sensitive antennae are surely radio telescopes like this one. Nothing connected with Rodin is peer-reviewed by scientists. And the stuff about solving every single one of the world's problems (we're ready to do it... we just haven't got round to it yet) is just absurd.

Of course they're lies.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Salk died in 1995.

Rodin has been around since before then. He must have said it before 1995, obviously. Get real!!

Originally posted by Bobathon

The most sensitive antennae are surely radio telescopes like this one.

You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know anything about what Rodin provided for the government.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Nothing connected with Rodin is peer-reviewed by scientists.

You don't know that.

Originally posted by Bobathon

And the stuff about solving every single one of the world's problems (we're ready to do it... we just haven't got round to it yet) is just absurd.

No, it's not, if you know anything about suppressed knowledge and technology. You are badly in need of time and effort put in to research.

Actually the most sensitive antennae are gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO and, in the next few years, LISA.

LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) will be three million miles long, and be able to measure displacements of less than 4% of the diameter of the smallest atom over that distance.

Now that is a sensitive antenna!

I wonder how a face-off with his idiotic donut would turn out...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Rodin has been around since before then. He must have said it before 1995, obviously.

No scientists have taken him seriously in the 16 years since, so why would one have then? Salk was a virologist, not a mathematician, so why would he comment on mathematics that no mathematician is apparently capable of understanding? Why are they quoting someone who's been dead for 16 years saying something outrageous about Rodin's genius instead of someone who might have been documented? You can't find a single reputable scientist or mathematician who's been alive in the last 16 years who's even said anything remotely complimentary. Of course it's a lie.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes I do.

Nothing connected with Rodin is peer-reviewed by scientists.

You don't know that.

Yes I do. That's a very easy thing to know. We have internet. You may have heard of it.

And the stuff about solving every single one of the world's problems (we're ready to do it... we just haven't got round to it yet) is just absurd.

No, it's not, if you know anything about suppressed knowledge and technology. You are badly in need of time and effort put in to research.

Yes it is.

But please do point me towards evidence of suppressed knowledge if you think I'm missing something.

Or you can just carry on blaming me for supposedly not knowing vital relevant pieces of information that you refuse to point to the existence of.

That appears to be your favourite way of pretending that you're not in fairyland.

Just don't expect me to leave you in peace to spread other people's lies in public. I find it disgusting.

I've watched 6 1/2 parts and what can I say? Those who understand math will say there is nothing mystical about this, and those who don't know math will say this is a significant discovery. If he cut out all that mystical crap he might be able to present a concept or two in real math in the field of number theory. Someone could probably generalize it to other bases, not just base 10, because that seems to be the only reason why 9 seems significant. This still would not revolutionize science at all.

Originally posted by 547000
This still would not revolutionize science at all.

Perhaps as a math nerd you're disappointed because you're not interested in technology - only math for its own sake as an intellectual exercise.

What's important is the technology.

As Beebs has pointed out, the vortex in nature and the universe is the phenomenon we're dealing with in suppressed technology. It's not going to go away.

reply to post by Bobathon

You're saying it predicts observations better, when it predicts nothing at all, and you're saying it explains observations logically and comprehensively when it doesn't. That's why.

Yes, of course they exist in nature. But Rodin hasn't created a form of mathematics based on vortices, he's just put some numbers in a pattern and used the word vortex randomly. It has nothing to do with nature.

I am afraid that your standpoint is pure speculation at most, and grudgingly ignorant at worst.

It predicts the wave nature of matter, predicts interference patterns, and everything else we have observed. It explains why we observe these things.

He has not put the numbers in randomly. That is an attempt to ridicule him. He has spent years working on his model. His model explains this in an intuitive way:



How does it explain that geometry in the sunflower more comprehensively? Because it is an inherent geometrical tendency of emerging natural systems.



How is this trivial? What does our current paradigm have to say about the geometry of nature, and how it arises from physics?

In other words, I am asking you to argue for your stance with information.

Of course, it is hard to argue against something you know little about, and do not understand.

reply to post by Bobathon

I say that it has nothing to do with nature, because I know that you, or anyone, cannot provide a single example of Rodin's 'mathematics' predicting or deriving or generating any solution to any physical situation involving physical vortices. There are none.

I say that it is not mathematics because there is no kind of rigorous logic involved at all. Mathematics relies absolutely on rigorous logic, presented explicitly and openly. There is none.

You are clearly out of your element, unfamiliar with the source material, and antagonizing without backing up your radical claims.

For the sake of simplicity, just remove the 'numerology' and math grid - since that is too much for you.

What you are left with, is a counter-rotating toroid dynamic of space time wave structure, or cymatics.

Your opinion is that this is bollocks. That is your stance. Argue for it.

I have pointed out that there is a whole discipline, complete with new terminology, diagrams and mathematics, prominent physicists, etc. ... which provides a convincing and clearly defined argument in favor of this dynamic.

Your opinion is that they are all crack pots, and that you know how to explain nature better. That is your stance. Argue for it.

And get off your mathematical high horse, it is usurping the imaginative side of your brain needed to comprehend new ideas.

Please refrain from trying to conflate your mathematics with nature itself, and explain your opinions of nature in easy to understand language(its harder than it looks).

On the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible. But on one point, curiously enough, there was failure: it proved impossible to associate with these Schrodinger waves definite motions of the mass points - and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction. The difficulty appeared insurmountable until it was overcome by Born in a way as simple as it was unexpected. The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1940)

Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (QM), differs fundamentally from both Newton's mechanics, and Maxwell's e-m field. For the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. (Albert Einstein, 1931)

I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1934)

reply to post by Mary Rose


This IS math for its own sake. What technology? What applications? It is pure mathematics, which is math for its own sake. Thank you for proving my point. You have no math or science skills, so you can't see how utterly stupid this all is. You think he's saying something deep and profound, when anyone who has a little skill in either field can see plainly what kooks these people are. Why not just follow buddhasystem's chakra research and think that's deep? Because it's not hyped beyond all rational reason?

Originally posted by 547000
What technology? What applications?

Suppressed technology.

Looking for essays on suppressed technology, I see that someone started a thread on ATS six years ago: "Suppressed technologies."

reply to post by Mary Rose


...
...
...

I just have no words here. God help the reader who still can't see through this crap.

reply to post by beebs
Is that is? A picture of a sunflower that you think looks like a picture of a Marko donut?

I have pointed out that there is a whole discipline, complete with new terminology, diagrams and mathematics, prominent physicists, etc. ... which provides a convincing and clearly defined argument in favor of this dynamic.

Good grief. You've got to be joking.

reply to post by 547000


And God help you, and humankind.

This website looks like a good resource: "Vortex Basics and Fractals from the Subatomic to the Super Galactic."

Originally posted by beebs

How about that natural magnetic fields are torus shaped... He is basically saying that fibonacci ratios in nature arise from the vortexial wave structure of spacetime fields(matter). Something like that.

Something like this:

"Fibonacci numbers - The Fingerprint of God."

reply to post by Bobathon

Is that is? A picture of a sunflower that you think looks like a picture of a Marko donut?

Hmm... Is that it? No... please refer yourself to every other post I have made. I find it highly disingenuous for you to ignore everything I have ever posted, and then ask me if one picture of a sunflower is all I have to bring to the table.

See, this is what I mean when I say you are out of your element. You are not even aware of the correlations Marko himself has drawn from his model to nature.

He is the one that thinks the sunflower is an example of vortex based mathematics at work, and that is what we are discussing here. Remember the primary source material?

I have pointed out that there is a whole discipline, complete with new terminology, diagrams and mathematics, prominent physicists, etc. ... which provides a convincing and clearly defined argument in favor of this dynamic.

Good grief. You've got to be joking.

You cannot entertain a serious discussion? I am deadly serious - why else would I keep on posting? I want you to argue FOR your interpretation of nature, and discuss why it is better than our interpretation.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

The only thing you have done so far, is say that our interpretation is not correct in your opinion. Much of the time appealing to ridicule...

From my perspective, you are in a state of denial - incapable of commenting on or understanding any of the necessary contextual material and figures, or the primary material for that matter. You are a sad example of an institutionalized status quo - rigid and unflexible... sure and unquestioning of your world view.

Not once do you entertain(or even attempt to refute) the firmly rooted idea that the atom is an extension of space in a real life wave structure. I have provided quotes from prominent physicists to back up this theory and provide context for this interpretation, but alas... they are ignored as well. I have provided other relevant material of mystics, philosophers, scientists, and mixtures of these... ignored.

I think your ego does not allow you to think properly. This is a symptom of the mass psychology of the physics institution. It is a consequence of materialistic atomism and reductionism, and the belief that there can be separation.

BTW, care to address anything else from my post?!

How is this trivial? What does our current paradigm have to say about the geometry of nature, and how it arises from physics?

In other words, I am asking you to argue for your stance with information.

What you are left with, is a counter-rotating toroid dynamic of space time wave structure, or cymatics.

Your opinion is that this is bollocks. That is your stance. Argue for it.

Your opinion is that they are all crack pots, and that you know how to explain nature better. That is your stance. Argue for it.

And get off your mathematical high horse, it is usurping the imaginative side of your brain needed to comprehend new ideas.

Please refrain from trying to conflate your mathematics with nature itself, and explain your opinions of nature in easy to understand language(its harder than it looks).

What do you think of Einstein's quotes? What do you think he would have to say in this discussion? How do you think he would feel about your ridicule, and dogmatic determinism?

How would he approach the discussion of the atom as an extension of space in a toroid wave structure composed of opposite streams of force?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

What do you think of Einstein's quotes? What do you think he would have to say in this discussion?

Dude. That's my favourite Beebs line so far.

reply to post by Bobathon


What a cop out!!



Does passive aggressive mean anything to you?

reply to post by Bobathon

Dude. That's my favourite Beebs line so far.

My case in point.

You refrain from any meaningful dialectic, instead preferring to condescendingly posture yourself as above the material - because it is ridiculous to you and not worthy.

That is specifically an argument appealing to ridicule, a fallacy.