"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Can you explain the rationale for adding 1 and 8?

So 18 does or does not equal 9? I think you already agreed that it doesn't yet Rodin claims it does.

The rationale is the same as the rationale for other math tricks. It is to further abstract numbers into relational 'archetypes' or common principles.

The rule of 9's is an interesting mathematical quirk which reveals the relationship inherent in multiples of 9. I am not sure there is much more to it than that.

18 corresponds to 9 in the rule of 9's. 18 does not 'equal' 9 literally, but corresponds to 9 in the archetypal system of reducing numbers which have a factor of 9.

Rodin extrapolates this idea to every other number and factor, getting a repeated set of corresponding values or archetypal numbers, and then applying those values in an alchemical way to a type of 'aetheric grain' in physics.

I highly recommend watching the John Searl Story, because he does something similar with The Law of the Squares. IMO, John Searl understands it better than Rodin, but they are both onto the same thing.

I also think this is the same idea which Keely understood, and what Dale Pond does through sympathetic vibratory physics. The 'grain' is a set of harmonic ratios(quanta) which the aetheric-like quantum foam or ZPE organizes itself.

Thats the general idea, at least. A bit rough around the edges still though

Originally posted by beebs
18 corresponds to 9 in the rule of 9's. 18 does not 'equal' 9 literally, but corresponds to 9 in the archetypal system of reducing numbers which have a factor of 9.

See this is what I'm talking about.

If there's a relationship, other than equals, then fine, explain the relationship just as you have done. I see no problem with that.

But when Rodin says literally that all multiples of 9 equal 9 so 18=9 I can't make excuses for inadequately communicating his ideas, if he actually means something else.

And by the way, I'd like to believe he actually means something else, and maybe he does, but I'm not entirely convinced about that.

Mathematics is a very precisely communicated field with precise symbols.

If what Rodin is doing isn't mathematics, then he shouldn't call it mathematics.

Beebs you could probably write this stuff better than Rodin

Your explanations make more sense.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the referee who commented on his paper, so you may want to see Phillips paper and the referee comments here: www.scientificexploration.org...

The referree comments start on page 38 of 58 . . .

I see the referee is with Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. I have no opinion about the referee or his perspective.

I was really asking you for your opinion - not someone else's. You seem to have a background in the sciences. I'm just a researcher.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Maybe the 1 in 18 when added to eight is functioning as a placeholder or substitute for the quantity ten because of an associated attribute of some kind that cannot be represented by a 2 digit numeral for a technical reason of some sort.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I just heard Dale Pond say "Pythagoras had an answer 2000 years ago, and he kinda got swept to the side because we had, and still have today, a partial philosophy - we don't have a holistic viewpoint - of nature."

The above statement, coupled with the fact that I have seen the system Rodin uses described by Horowitz in a book of his that I read, and the system being referred to as Pythagorean math - make me think there is something to Rodin's "Vortex Based Mathematics."

Originally posted by beebs
I highly recommend watching the John Searl Story, because he does something similar with The Law of the Squares. IMO, John Searl understands it better than Rodin, but they are both onto the same thing.

Can only find the trailer for the John Searl Story, but this is on Google video:

The Searl Effect: Large-Scale Antigravity

56:43 - 4 years ago

Filmed in 1994 at the IFNE Conference in Denver, this hour-long presentation by John Searl describes the inner-workings of the infamous Searl-Effect Generator and IGV Propulsion System with photos, schematics, construction details, and a concise summary of 1960's testing that you simply can't afford to miss! John Searl is one of the most controversial figures in Antigravity research, but since beginning his work in the 1940's, he's arguably become "the father of modern Antigravity". His claim is simple: that after a childhood dream showing a rotating set of rollers on a metallic ring, he constructed a device called the Searl Effect Generator (SEG) that seems to produce massive Antigravitational thrust. Searl is one of the cultural icons in the Antigravity

Google Video Link

John Searl's The Law of the Squares

Ok can someone give me a explanation of how this should be related to the physical world?
All I can find are rantings of how it does, but no concrete evidence.

The claim seems to be that you can arbitrary choose the scale of quantisation. If there is such a thing it should be possible to generate any dimensional structure with it.

If it is it must be closely related to the Look and Say Sequence since it is the only mechanism besides numbers spaces which demonstrates this kind of behavior.
1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221, 312211, 13112221, 1113213211, 31131211131221, 13211311123113112211, 11131221133112132113212221, 3113112221232112111312211312113211, ...

The digits never rise above 3 and there are exactly 92 "Audioactive Elements" (need I say alchemy )
The only thing it depends on is the axiom of choice. (You cannot reduce math further without discarding reason)
ok you want replace math with a programming language... go ahead this are the machine instructions.

"Talk is cheap show me the code" -Linus Tovalds


nailed it

reply to post by kybertech

Does God require a degree, or 'something' before one can express thoughts of God ?

Originally posted by starless and bible black
reply to post by kybertech

 

Does God require a degree, or 'something' before one can express thoughts of God ?

Funny you should mention it... Seems like the mind of man (especially members on this thread) look to challenge God with a piece of paper. Not gonna happen!

reply to post by beebs


In the past all I've done is round up the info, but I have to admit... You do a damn fine job of explaining!

reply to post by Americanist


Are you teasing me now?
Anyway is see reason and the mathematical rules as evidence of the divine.

From the Proceedings of the NPA, (Natural Philosophy Alliance), Long Beach, 2010, the paper "The Rodin Number Map and the Rodin Coil" by Greg Volk uses the term "modulo arithmetic" to describe Rodin's number system.

reply to post by kybertech


Naaaaw, here's a great teaser for you...

The ancients represented it by a serpent, for “Fohat hisses as he glides hither and thither” (in zigzags). The Kabala figures it with the Hebrew letter Teth , whose symbol is the serpent which played such a prominent part in the Mysteries. Its universal value is nine, for it is the ninth letter of the alphabet and the ninth door of the fifty portals or gateways that lead to the concealed mysteries of being. It is the magical agent par excellence, and designates in Hermetic philosophy “Life infused into primordial matter,” the essence that composes all things, and the spirit that determines their form. But there are two secret Hermetical operations, one spiritual, the other material-correlative, and for ever united. “Thou shalt separate the earth from the fire, the subtile from the solid . . . that which ascends from earth to heaven and descends again from heaven to earth. It (the subtile light), is the strong force of every force, for it conquers every subtile thing and penetrates into every solid. Thus was the world formed” (Hermes).

Source


Whether you agree with this woman or not, she did quite a bit of homework on the subject. Way more than the church back in the day. As pointed out above... The number 9 sure pops out often.

reply to post by Mary Rose


How the heck did this thread get dumped in ATS Skunk Works? If I were you, I'd send a polite email to one of the mods "reconsidering" their choice of placement. Whoever set this in here is surely clueless.

reply to post by Americanist


Here's the rationale of the mod who moved the thread: "This deserved to be moved to a forum where people are actively interested in this type of alternative research. It's not strictly a news article discussion, so I bumped it to a forum higher up on the board devoted to alternative methodologies."

I had posted the thread in Science & Technology and was amazed when I read "not strictly a news article discussion," since in my mind, a conspiracy theory website should be skeptical about relying on news articles as a prime source for cutting edge science and technology.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Well, clearly this should be in the philosophy and metaphysics board, since that is the primary material being discussed.

Yeah, it has to do with some science and math, but I think theosophical and alchemical-like things should go in the philosophy board.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Beebs you could probably write this stuff better than Rodin

Well, I just see the same pattern as Keely, Pond, and Searl in his ideas. IMO, if you want to understand this concept than go to one of them instead... I am sure other alchemists and pre-scientists have had similar ideas as well. Kepler and Pythagoras in particular. Kepler had the layered harmonics and astronomical geometries, Pythagoras the infatuation with mathematics and ratios and vibrations. Both very similar... Cymatics:




Rodin is not as good as them at explaining himself, although I must admit I have not made it through the 4 hour presentation... only about an hour

reply to post by beebs


I see the technology as being the important thing.

Prof. Scot C. Nelson of the Univ. of Hawaii is one of Rodin's endorsers. In his letter of endorsement Prof. Nelson mentions plant growth patterns known as "phyllotaxis."

On the vortexmath.com website there is a page by Prof. Nelson entitled "ABHA Coil as a Coordinate System." Prof. compares a standard Cartesian coordinate system vs. a phyllotaxis spatiotemporal coordinate system and the "mod 9 daisy phyllotaxis integer matrix."

I think this chart that he includes is informative:

Originally posted by beebs
Rodin is not as good as them at explaining himself, although I must admit I have not made it through the 4 hour presentation... only about an hour

I'm viewing the last 1/2 hour. I'm looking at a chart with the title "Secret Math of the Ancients." It says "The Doubling Circuit, the Enneagram dividing by 7 and the Torus are all the same."