"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I don't see how that . . . confuses the theoretical scientists at the forefront of research into the nature of light, matter & energy in the least.

You don't?

Interesting!

reply to post by Mary Rose


so tell me why it is important then?

I used coloured wooden number sticks to teach my kids arthimatic - does that make cutting edge mathematics rely upon number sticks?? (as an aside #1 son is a bit of a math whizzz.......so I take the credit! )

why is it that how we teach some concepts at a relatively low level affects the cutting edge of that discupline, whichever it may be?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Are you playing dumb?

I think so.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Thanks for the abuse and not answering the questions.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Free Energy and Free Thinking," this is very interesting:

So is this:

The vortex is central to wave mechanics and when the academicians threw out the ether concept they discarded the investigation into vortices, which are the source of all wave motions in our Universe. By eliminating the vortices from the academic theory, it ensured our handlers, that those who dedicate themselves to the system of mind control in place would never question the extreme motive force of the vortex and apply it to solving our energy needs and freeing us from the polluting fuels sold at extreme cost by energy barons, then wasted by explosion, heat and pollution, extracting a fraction of its value in the form of usable motive energy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

that those who dedicate themselves to the system of mind control in place would never question the extreme motive force of the vortex and apply it to solving our energy needs and freeing us from the polluting fuels sold at extreme cost by energy barons, then wasted by explosion, heat and pollution, extracting a fraction of its value in the form of usable motive energy.

Oops, I guess mind control didn't work on him and he figured out the secret!

But now that he knows the secret, who's stopping him from applying the "extreme motive force of the vortex" "to solving our energy needs and freeing us from the polluting fuels sold at extreme cost by energy barons"?

I don't see anyone suppressing him from talking about it. I've seen thousands of people make ludicrous over unity claims, but zero of them have ever made anything that works. Talk is cheap, why doesn't someone build one of the darn contraptions instead of incessantly just talking about it like that. Maybe because they can't and their claims are nothing but empty claims to get this guy excited:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cfb8bdb77e7d.jpg[/atsimg]

He's making notes on all this stuff and he believes all of it. Then he's going to make a two-pronged blog:
Part A will be about how all this over-unity technology is being suppressed
Part B will be a critique of historical Chinese poetry, never mind that he doesn't read or write a word of Chinese, he's going to opine on it anyway. And other people who don't know Chinese will read his blog and profess amazement at his insightful analysis.
And other people that do know Chinese will read his analysis of Chinese poetry and exclaim "what the..(censored)..?"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Free Energy and Free Thinking," this is very interesting:

So is this, regarding Ed Leedskalnin:

Ed said that the academic idea that they are sending electrons through wires as you electric service is also false. Helical coils of electricity flow in spiraling rings around the wires.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So is this, regarding Ed Leedskalnin:

Ed said that the academic idea that they are sending electrons through wires as you electric service is also false. Helical coils of electricity flow in spiraling rings around the wires.

Leedskalnin was no academic so how would he have a clue about an "academic idea"? His writing is maybe interesting to 8th graders, since from what I've seen of his work it looks like it's written at an 8th grade level.

Unlike Leedskalnin, I did get academic training, so I can say that what he says about the "academic idea" is false. Academics do teach that the energy in an AC transmission line is carried largely by electromagnetic fields outside the confines of the wire. The electromagnetic waves typically travel at the just under the speed of light. In comparison, the electrons move pretty slowly, but contrary to what Leedskalnin implies, they do move:

Speed of electricity

When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field.

I also noticed Leedskalnin's book title is "magnetic current". Current refers to the flow of electrons, so it would be electric current which is the flow of electrons, not magnetic current.

www.merriam-webster.com...

3: a flow of electric charge; also : the rate of such flow

"magnetic current" is more dictionary abuse.

This is like a flood of garbage for the "open-minded" who demand no evidence:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79e0928efa27.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You need to change your act. Your repeated use of silly graphics to try to impress the viewer is stale.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

You need to change your act. Your repeated use of silly graphics to try to impress the viewer is stale.

You need to change yours. You're arguing for things you don't understand. When pointed this out you ignore and deflect. You're no different from high schoolers thinking scientific research is about quoting as many people as you can. Whenever you talk about how the field should change it's like a plumber telling an astronomer what to do because he saw a few documentaries on PBS kids.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The following is my transcript of the video embedded below:

Addressed to the particle physicists of the world

In video #7, we reviewed the architecture of light. I argued that light does not consist of a stream of particles, or of transverse waves, as orthodoxy claims. Light has the physical configuration of a DNA-like rope.

Experiments readily show the transverse nature of propagating electromagnetic waves. It can be shown in neat and simple experiments at radio frequency, with a simple dipole antenna, as well as in optical range etc. It's not as much "orthodoxy" but what we observe. Imagine that when it's raining, I get out and get wet. I come back into the house and say "it's raining outside". Nobody in his right mind would then tell me "oh but that's just what orthodoxy claims, it's not really true. Keep your mind open and you'll be dry next time!". So I find this transcript completely and utterly stupid.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

You need to change your act. Your repeated use of silly graphics to try to impress the viewer is stale.

I guess it's a desperate attempt by Arb to get through to those ATS members who aren't very good at reading comprehension and plain logic. Graphics are a famously effective tool in educating small children.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'll give you both mad props, if you can go out and balance a 9-ton swivel door all by your lonesome with no heavy machinery.

Its hard for me to get over how ridiculous this topic has become...

Apparently we have a former physics teacher, and a person who currently works at ATLAS, that all they do is sit around ATS and lazily tell people to 'prove it to me otherwise I'm correct!' Lets call them A. and B.

'Spoon feed me!'

The basis of their antagonism is ridicule, and appealing to themselves as authority.

Whatever sources (besides ourselves) we come up with to bolster our argument, are obviously delusional and/or crazy and/or charlatans and/or word soup monsters etc... And whenever our sources are genuine authorities on the topic, more so than either A. or B.? Well, we won't focus on them will we... but instead focus on some little bit over here... and that guy isn't credible... and look at this word! Obviously this guy is a fraud because he used that word there... which is absolute bollocks taken extremely literally and out of context! AHA!

What sources do they counter with (besides their own ego/institutional 'authority')? Well, Feynman of course. And some tiresome internet memes about brains falling out, etc.

'If you don't like our lack of understanding, then get out of our illogical esoteric clique!'

Sorry guys, but I am going with Schrodinger, Einstein, Dirac, Tesla, Pauli, Keely, Leedskalnin, Wolff, Larson, Reich, Clifford, Helmholtz, Russell, etc. etc. It is a coherent whole, which you deny as separate madness.

I am going with what they said and what they thought, not what you think they were all about based on their mathematical contributions, but what they actually meant and considered reality.

“The most modern physics, even in the finest details, can be represented symbolically as psychic processes.” - Wolfgang Pauli

The mass psychology of physics is the denial of the fullness of space, and the inability to cope with the non-separate nature of nature. A neurotic physicist clings to the nuclear model, because it is a reflection of their own ego and self-centered idea of reality... both ideas reinforcing each other in a feedback loop.

The conclusion that the nuclear theory of the atom is erroneous and that in reality there is no such thing as an atomic nucleus will be difficult for the present generation of scientists to accept. The individual who has from childhood visualized the atom in the manner pictured by Bohr, who has participated in the great debates over the use of “nuclear” energy, who reads Nucleonics and the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and who has perhaps taught classes in “nuclear physics” cannot be expected to look with enthusiasm on the prospect of life without a nucleus. We can, of course, remind him that the Bohr atom has long since vanished from the scene and that the “official” atom of modern physics cannot even be imagined, so the experts say, much less pictured. We can also point out that “atomic energy” and “atomic physics,” the terms that will have to be substituted when the nucleus is discarded, are already in common use. Most of the “nuclear physicists” in the United States work, directly or indirectly, for the Atomic Energy Commission. But this will probably be cold comfort. One is not easily reconciled to the loss of an old friend in the world of ideas. - Larson

It is only when we try to ascertain the details of something that does not exist and conjure up all manner of explanations of wholly imaginary happenings, that we enmesh ourselves in the kind of difficulties characteristic of modern physics. - Larson

It is only when one realizes both that there is no ego as currently conceived, and that there is no nucleus as currently conceived of, then we will finally be able to progress as a functional community into the slippery slope of this twenty-first century.

The subsequent realization is that Space is Full.

It is a matter of deciding the question whether nature is an “empty space with a few widely scattered specks,” or whether it is a space full of cosmic primordial energy, a continuum which functions in a lively way and obeys a generally valid natural law.”
(Reich, From Ether, God and Devil, 1949, in SW p. 276-277)

Our perceptions are tainted by the lens we use to perceive.

reply to post by beebs


How are your lens not tainted? What about the physicists who disagree with your point of view? You blanket accuse them of not being able to think for themselves because they disagree with your metaphysics. Why don't you have an open mind and consider your ideas might be wrong? Or does the trait of open-mindedness belong only to people who disagree with establishment views?

Originally posted by 547000
You're arguing for things you don't understand.

You're wrong.

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm investigating with an open mind. I'm a researcher.

I don't need to change my act. My act is an honest one. I don't go into ridicule mode, which is a fallacy of argumentation.

I suggest that ridicule mode be dropped from the thread going forward.

Originally posted by beebs
Its hard for me to get over how ridiculous this topic has become...

Apparently we have a former physics teacher, and a person who currently works at ATLAS, that all they do is sit around ATS and lazily tell people to 'prove it to me otherwise I'm correct!'

But it's more ridiculous than that! I can prove that the silly claims in this thread are WRONG, therefore it's a non-starter for an ignoramus like you. And just for the record, I'm not a former physics teacher, I was an instructor at a university when I went to graduate school.

Teflon does not conduct electricity. A magnet does not act as a "diode". There is no black hole inside the atomic nucleus. The more you keep repeating these mantras, the further you progress on the road to laughing stock. And you've gone a long way, baby.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
You're arguing for things you don't understand.

You're wrong.

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm investigating with an open mind. I'm a researcher.

Do not suppose that. A researcher would try to understand why the heck a magnet will function as a diode, or even attract "radioactive particles". You don't do any of that.

reply to post by buddhasystem


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

You can't advise me on what I should investigate next.

You haven't the slightest idea what my priorities should be.

Speak for yourself only.

Do it with respect for others.

Otherwise, you should be ignored.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, you ARE arguing. When someone with an actual background in these matters points out what rubbish some claims are, you just laugh and tell them they know nothing and aren't credible. In a way you are arguing for the nonsense you post.