"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by beebs
Vortex based math is about the structure of the atom, the nature of reality, theoretical physics, philosophy, etc.

Arbitrageur asked you and others, bazilion times already, do demonstrate any link between Rodin's sudoku and reality. He heard nothing back. Here you are saying that it explains the structure of the atom. How? Seriously, for how much longer can you post stuff you can't back up? At one point you said there was a black hole inside every atom, now it's "number nine explains the structure of the atom". You don't know anything about theoretical physics, why do you presume to talk about any sort of vortex being "about theoretical physics"?

big picture

Yeah well this is yet another thread where fantastical claims are made, and once again no relation to reality can be found.

Would you ridicule VBM in such a lazy and ignorant way, if the title of the thread was 'Vortex Based Mathematics by Hermann von Helmholtz'?

It's pretty pathetic when someone calls Arb ignorant whereas he demonstrates pretty solid logic and, as a breath of fresh air in these threads, apparently has pretty solid education under his belt. My guess is this: if Helmholtz really became senile in late years of his life and started making nonsensical statements like "I made a black hole in my resonator" or "number 8.5 is an elementary particle", Arb would just say that well, it's nuts, and sad.

You keep trying that demagoguery about how Arb (and I) are simply bowing to some "authority", whereas what's happening here that Arb and I are asking really simple questions to which you can't provide any answers. And you blame some "authority" for that? Case in point, you are saying that Rodin's "math" explains the atomic structure. I demand a clear exposition of that thesis.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Count how many times you've mentioned food monsters toppled with marinara sauce.

That alone speaks for itself by serving to detail your intentions and overall character set.

Furthermore, what reference do you use for our Universe? Are you drawing blanks,
or just haven't thought it through enough? You've put yourself in a position to converse...

With no substance or stance to withstand a real debate. Pretty obvious why you resort to food jokes.

Pull up a chair and get schooled for a little while. You might pick up at least some insight into this life.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Count how many times you've mentioned food monsters toppled with marinara sauce.

I mentioned this too many times to comfortably count. The reason is, I see just as much connection between food monsters and physics as I do between Rodin's sudoku and the atomic structure. If you can prove me wrong, go right ahead.

Pull up a chair and get schooled for a little while. You might pick up at least some insight into this life.

I've been through more schooling than you ever had any hope of ever getting. If you have anything to say on the subject of physics, experiment, or math, shoot.

So again, Beebs says that Rodin has a great model of the atom, based on his tables. He can't explain this, maybe you can?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Are you saying that article has some relation to Rodin's 1,4,7 - 2,5,8? If so what is it, I'm not seeing the connection. In addition, I'll bet donuts to dollars that nothing in that math says anything like "all multiples of 9 equal 9".

Should I refer to you as the straw man or Arb? Hard to tell the difference...

That pattern recognition is more mathematically valid than the bible code, but I'm not sure how it's any more useful.

I draw links to natural timing and also of cymatics, solfeggio frequencies, and platonic solid formation.

smphillips.8m.com...

reply to post by buddhasystem


The atom is a frame rate.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The atom is a frame rate.

What frame?

Atom is an object, rate is a number. If you insist on talking food monsters, that's up to you.

Atom is a cymatic vibration of space harmonics, from macro to micro. Right?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The atom is a frame rate.

What frame?

Atom is an object, rate is a number. If you insist on talking food monsters, that's up to you.

Atom is a cymatic vibration of space harmonics, from macro to micro. Right?

To be more specific... Atom is refresh rate spread through what you see of galaxies... Counter/counter-clockwise rotation. Macro to micro the same, correct. Background "noise" is a circuit made from recognizable symbols which spin energy into patterns. The mass of particles as they assemble/ reassemble.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The atom is a frame rate.

What frame?

Atom is an object, rate is a number. If you insist on talking food monsters, that's up to you.

Atom is a cymatic vibration of space harmonics, from macro to micro. Right?

To be more specific... Atom is refresh rate spread through what you see of galaxies... Counter/counter-clockwise rotation. Macro to micro the same, correct. Background "noise" is a circuit made from recognizable symbols which spin energy into patterns. The mass of particles as they assemble/ reassemble

Particles assemble into a circuit of fractal pattern, right? Energy is channeled according to the specific rotation frequency. When observed through atom, this pulsation corresponds to refresh rate.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The atom is a frame rate.

What frame?

Atom is an object, rate is a number. If you insist on talking food monsters, that's up to you.

Atom is a cymatic vibration of space harmonics, from macro to micro. Right?

To be more specific... Atom is refresh rate spread through what you see of galaxies... Counter/counter-clockwise rotation. Macro to micro the same, correct. Background "noise" is a circuit made from recognizable symbols which spin energy into patterns. The mass of particles as they assemble/ reassemble

Particles assemble into a circuit of fractal pattern, right? Energy is channeled according to the specific rotation frequency. When observed through atom, this pulsation corresponds to refresh rate.

Particles assembled/ reassembled by circuits driven to singularities myriad times over. Perhaps the causation of decay. And not just any fractal pattern, but one allowing for said circuits to function in tandem. These formations of mass are relative to rate and scale. A perfect example is the observable macro... Galaxies traveling via blackholes.

Originally posted by Americanist
Particles assembled/reassembled by circuits driven to singularities myriad times over. Perhaps the causation of decay.

No, causation of decay is sudden loss of synchronization frequency, when the circuit goes out of tune, and the singularity collapses onto itself.

And not just any fractal pattern, but one allowing for said circuits to function in tandem.

It's not tandem (implying two), it's a fractal pattern of circuits replicating themselves, each at a specific frequency dictated by ever increasing dimensionality. This way, a perturbation travels inward, from macro to micro.

These formations of mass are relative to rate and scale. A perfect example is the observable macro... Galaxies traveling via blackholes.

Exactly!

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Particles assembled/reassembled by circuits driven to singularities myriad times over. Perhaps the causation of decay.

No, causation of decay is sudden loss of synchronization frequency, when the circuit goes out of tune, and the singularity collapses onto itself.

And not just any fractal pattern, but one allowing for said circuits to function in tandem.

It's not tandem (implying two), it's a fractal pattern of circuits replicating themselves, each at a specific frequency dictated by ever increasing dimensionality. This way, a perturbation travels inward, from macro to micro.

These formations of mass are relative to rate and scale. A perfect example is the observable macro... Galaxies traveling via blackholes.

Exactly!

Tandem... Two or more. At this point I consider applauding you, but I'm not quite sure, if you're being sincere.

No, causation of decay is sudden loss of synchronization frequency, when the circuit goes out of tune, and the singularity collapses onto itself.

Apparently I left my statement open-ended, so you could expound on the topic. Well done... I'd like to think we're agreeable now. And look, no food fight to speak of.

Originally posted by Americanist
Tandem... Two or more. At this point I consider applauding you, but I'm not quite sure, if you're being sincere.

Of course I wasn't sincere, just pulling your leg. I decided if others post cheerful nonsense on ATS, why should I deny myself that simple pleasure? So I thought let me write a few nonsensical posts thick with pseudo-scientific jargon and see where it leads. You bought that line, hook and sinker, proving my point. Thank you.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Tandem... Two or more. At this point I consider applauding you, but I'm not quite sure, if you're being sincere.

Of course I wasn't sincere, just pulling your leg. I decided if others post cheerful nonsense on ATS, why should I deny myself that simple pleasure? So I thought let me write a few nonsensical posts thick with pseudo-scientific jargon and see where it leads. You bought that line, hook and sinker, proving my point. Thank you.

Point being you're able to regurgitate valid information. True, it's stretch for you because it's not wrapped in spaghetti, but it's just as equally hearty. You might also continue the study of what you consider nonsensical... I suggest galactic formations and work your way down.

Originally posted by Americanist
Point being you're able to regurgitate valid information. True, it's stretch for you because it's not wrapped in spaghetti, but it's just as equally hearty. You might also continue the study of what you consider nonsensical... I
suggest galactic formations and work your way down.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I didn't regurgitate any information, what's more, I didn't even make a mental effort, just rhymed the typical word soup representative of your posts, and Beebs'. If that gibberish made remote sense to you, which I think it did, it just shows, in a rather spectacular way, just how fruitless and silly these exercises of yours are. Harmonic resonance of spatial domain circuit, from macro to micro, with atom pulsating at the refresh rate of galactic energy flow, and all.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Point being you're able to regurgitate valid information. True, it's stretch for you because it's not wrapped in spaghetti, but it's just as equally hearty. You might also continue the study of what you consider nonsensical... I
suggest galactic formations and work your way down.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I didn't regurgitate any information, what's more, I didn't even make a mental effort, just rhymed the typical word soup representative of your posts, and Beebs'. If that gibberish made remote sense to you, which I think it did, it just shows, in a rather spectacular way, just how fruitless and silly these exercises of yours are. Harmonic resonance of spatial domain circuit, from macro to micro, with atom pulsating at the refresh rate of galactic energy flow, and all.

Lends credit to our word soup whether you're of a differing mindset or not. Besides, I don't believe I saw a theory of yours only culinary advice the likes of a 3-4 year old. Oh, and your chakra-zulu chart which categorizes you as a bozo.

You've been given names. Dark Energy and Dark Flow. Make of them what you will. Again, I'll point you in the direction of revelations concerning galaxies. Each is anchored at a black hole. The size and speed relative to its centerpiece. This is observable, so the debate turns to how elementary your understanding.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Dude... this is completely ridiculous. You honestly are challenging me about theoretical physics on this particular point, when you have consistently demonstrated a refusal to acknowledge each and every source and facet of the argument?!

Rodin's model is not original. He is not a 'lone gunman'. What I mean, is that he is not the first person to think of the idea of a 'vortex' atom.

Lord Kelvin on Vortex Atoms

His ideas fall within a clear and discernible context. Clearly, this type of theory of the atom is well within the boundaries of reasonable alternatives.

One of the only arguments I think you have really attempted to bolster your position against mine, is that every source I refer to is somehow mentally challenged. This is completely revolting and disheartening.

---

And I wish I wouldn't have to use the term 'ignorant' ever on these boards, but it is an unfortunate necessity in some cases. This case being a lack of familiarity with the source material.

I regret the fact that you and Arb both have more experience in experimentation.

reply to post by Americanist


Glad to have you here.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Atom is a cymatic vibration of space harmonics, from macro to micro. Right?

Yep...

But just a little clarification... its best if you rather say an atom is a harmonic vibration of space cymatics. I don't mean to nit-pick... but you know, science is pretty exact.

u r pwn

reply to post by buddhasystem


You are so LAME!

Haha, I mean... you are just such a clever person aren't you!

reply to post by beebs

I regret the fact that you and Arb both have more experience in experimentation.

By that you mean tag team off the ropes. "There comes a time in a man's life..." Nacho Libre