"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Then again some people think the B-2 or the mythical TR-3B use anti-gravity technology, which seems to be total fantasy. I don't think the secret labs have any secrets that big.

Pretty sure the TR-3B could use a little anti-gravity tho - they'er a bit close to the ground......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Isn't that the "A" version?

It seems they made a few improvements with the "B" version of the TR-3, at least according to Ed Fouche:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd079d5c6bc4.jpg[/atsimg]

But then again he said he was writing fiction, so I'm not sure why people believe what he wrote. Rodin would probably like the technology though, that mercury plasma ring is a torus. Put some sudoku on that thing and you're good to go.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hm...well that does look a little uprated, and as I say the TR's were all a bit close to the ground.

but no - the one I posted above was the 3B.

The TR-3 looks like this:



and hte TR-3A looks like this:



but personally I find them a bit cramped and small, and I bought a Stag instead - 4 seats and a V-8 is much cooler



Still wouldn't mind a little anti-grav tho......



Might be getting a little OT....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Put some sudoku on that thing and you're good to go.

Haha - love it

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Put some sudoku on that thing and you're good to go.

Haha - love it

You need to call Rodin first. What if the vortex interferes with mercury plasma at 250,000 atm? I mean this is a huge number. Actually, I might know the answer -- sudokus are typically graded for difficulty level. Just be sure to pick "easy", and the reactor just might hold.

Can I have some info about which easily look-uppable technological innovations has this math contributed to?

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN

Sure!

there you go.

reply to post by Bobathon
I'd have to agree. Rodin claims his math has something to do with his coil, but I can't even see how it applies to that. It doesn't apply to anything in the real world.

His plan to produce working prototypes is funny: www.free-energy-info.co.uk...

For some reason he has to spend $12 million in phase 1 making a movie about how great his technology is, and other expenses besides making working prototypes.

It's only after blowing $12 million on that that he plans to start Phase 2, where he starts making an even more expensive movie costing $30 million, and oh yeah, the #2 priority in phase 2 is to make some prototypes that will:

The Rodin Torus Coil makes much of current technology obsolete, including the
following :
• The combustion engine
• Alternating current
• Conventional computer compression schemes
• Current methods of heat dissipation in computer processors
• Conventional wireless communication
• Winged airplanes
• All conventional types of encryption
• Endless repeating decimals are eliminated as a result of being able to
compute a whole value for anything

I wouldn't throw away your car, computer, and other household appliances just yet

Free Energy: How to Burn Salt Water



Free energy to solve most of the world’s most pressing problems: salt water can power all the world's cars and generators!
See the Kanzius Radio Wave Generator that excites water with radio waves so it burns at 1500 degrees Celsius @

www.youtube.com...

The Matrix of Illusion

Reality is a holographic Illusion and consciousness is the substance of the universe

matter does not exist

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


No mention about the efficiency of his device. Isn't this just a very inefficient method of electrolysis? The electric field generated by his device causes a currents in the salt water (hence it only works with salt water)?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It might be bit tricky to find, but rodin does detail the application of the pattern to the torus. He shows it in a graph pattern where you can see how he builds off of the pattern. Though, he is certainly lacking on the "why" of the specific pattern iteration, he seems to be quite honest about his own level of understanding of the subject.

While i dislike how Rodin (and so many others nowadays, it seems) is "marketing" his discovery as some sort of savior of mankind, it is a pattern. One that is apparently present in all Base "X" systems (which i believe was brought up in this thread?). i think between all this new marketing surrounding science, and people who wait for their universe to be defined by others, true scientific progress has a chance of just stalling out or being guided by profit. i dont think such a paradigm should be allowed to take hold..

[soapbox]
If one sees a pattern, but scoffs because of how it is presented and does no exploration or testing themselves, that person is more interested in dogma and politics than actual science. Everything seen that disagrees with current bias will be tossed out with nary a second glance. i do not see any actual test data in this thread, or even attempts to propose methods, and yet most everyone is speaking with some sort of authority? Because of the inherent limitations of the human system, this creates a bit of a problem. The same could be said for the flip-side of that, where one blindly accepts something since it agrees with the already present contexts and bias without actually exploring it (as in testing). How our most advanced science will look to humanity 1000 years from now will likely be even more pronounced of a difference than between us and the Aztec. That is, of course, if we make it that far

But there is always this battle between those who fiercely defend the old paradigm, and those who want to disregard it completely. Every culture thinks that it is the one that has the answers, the pinnacle of understanding amongst the human race, but we are really just a stepping stone for the future. If the only change is constant, we should base our understanding of science upon that context. We see patterns, we explore them. If something shows consistency (such as the rate mass is pulled towards the surface of the earth), we can base theories off of that. While we may have math describing the pattern, that still doesnt embody the totality of the pattern itself. We will always have more to learn. This means that while the civilization may have described a facet of behavior, describing anything in totality would prove difficult (or impossible) due to the limits of us as systems and beings. At best, we might be able to describe something by number, but we cant describe a quark like we can a sunset.
[/soapbox]

It takes more than a good mind and google to do anything worthwhile scientifically. We should take it up a notch on ATS, those that have already invested a good amount of time into writing the replies of this thread should explore this pattern, using mathematics and the scientific method (with testing, obviously, being key). Instead of spending all the time arguing, the people involved would all be exploring the same concept and corroborating evidence and data to actually explore the context at hand. Everyone involved helping and cooperating to understand what is presented before us. All of the time used in this thread so far could have been used on actual research and real world testing of the concepts presented. If everything was approached this way, despite differences, we might actually get somewhere.

So, what do you think, is everyone confident enough to test their own theories in cooperation with others? Or would people rather just argue?

Originally posted by sinohptik
...
i do not see any actual test data in this thread, or even attempts to propose methods, and yet most everyone is speaking with some sort of authority?

Did Rodin provide any data?

and...

Wait a second, the onus of proving Rodin's extraordinary claims is on someone else's shoulders even though he himself produced squat? What sort of logic is that?

We should take it up a notch on ATS, those that have already invested a good amount of time into writing the replies of this thread should explore this pattern, using mathematics and the scientific method (with testing, obviously, being key).

Again, do you propose that someone spends time testing this? Like, seriously?

You see, Rodin doesn't even have a theory. He says there is "vortex" inside his tattooed donut, but doesn't explain (a) why it appears (b) what characteristics his "math" is predicting for it.

What the hell?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Thats exactly what i thought..

Humans always expect everything to be done for them as if the exploration is a chore. You have already spent all your time parroting and repeating the same thing over and over in this thread that could have been spent actually exploring this. So, you would rather spend time arguing, that is clear. Electromagnetism still needs much research, specifically in regards like these. So, instead of using your bias (which is inherently based in very, very limited information as well as your cultural story), one explores it or just moves on. Why argue it? If you are going to spend your time on this, why spend it on arguing and not actual testing to back up the claims you inevitably make?

Lawyers talk like you do, not scientists.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Wait a second, the onus of proving Rodin's extraordinary claims is on someone else's shoulders even though he himself produced squat?

That's the perfect summary

The onus is on the people who know he's got nothing to convince the people who don't know squat and won't listen to squat that their little bubble world might not be real, while they set their bubbles in steel-reinforced concrete and lock themselves in and shout their idiocy at people passing by.

It's a bit of a tough ask.

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Thats exactly what i thought..

Humans always expect everything to be done for them as if the exploration is a chore.

I don't expect anyone to do experimentation for me. I work in an experiment. Professionally. Your point?

Electromagnetism still needs much research, specifically in regards like these.

What exactly regards? What should motivate me to see a semblance of a hint of plausibility in the nonsense that Rodin is selling to unsuspecting public day in, day out?

I asked specifically (a) why Rodin says a vortex needs to appear inside his lousy coil (b) what Rodin expects as manifestation of the vortex. Can you help with this? Feel free to use a few hours of your time to re-view his videos.

You are welcome.

Originally posted by sinohptik

All of the time used in this thread so far could have been used on actual research and real world testing of the concepts presented.

Are you saying that in the last 15 years while Rodin's ideas have been around on the web, nobody has once thought of applying them to something instead of arguing about them?

Don't you think there'd be some serious results by now if there was any truth in it? Wouldn't someone who knows how to put a concrete argument have picked it up and run with it, publishing papers or designing technology and using it to do something more substantial than make a magnet move? This stuff has been massively publicised and hyped, and all there is to show for it is stories and empty claims.

By all means, rally the troops and try to get something to happen. That would be something. But seriously, don't stand where you're standing and claim it's up to others to prove Rodin false. That really doesn't add up.

reply to post by sinohptik


THE ORIGIN IS I CHING MATHEMATIC BY LEE BURTON, IT ALL WORKS, Rodin's doesn't work

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't expect anyone to do experimentation for me. I work in an experiment. Professionally. Your point?

i work with science too, professionally, your point?

What exactly regards? What should motivate me to see a semblance of a hint of plausibility in the nonsense that Rodin is selling to unsuspecting public day in, day out?

I asked specifically (a) why Rodin says a vortex needs to appear inside his lousy coil (b) what Rodin expects as manifestation of the vortex. Can you help with this? Feel free to use a few hours of your time to re-view his videos.

You are welcome.

As a scientist, you should be well aware that the proposed contexts of the underlying concepts are almost never accurate due to their very nature. This is why we do actual testing. If we let all of the testing be done by "official" sources, we must never accept the whole story as some wierd altruistic entity free from the human condition.

The vortex is his concept, not mine. Through my own research of similar contexts, the difference between winding of coils and their electromagnetic characteristics is an area with little to no actual research that is extremely interesting. When did science turn from an exploration of the unknown to a competition between who is right/wrong in their individually limited contexts? The more people exploring the concept scientifically, the better chance we have at viewing it through more eyes, and get a larger glimpse of what might really be happening.

The pattern he presents is self-evident, and for some reason that dismisses it as being something worthy of exploration as well. "fingerprint of god?" well, that would be rodin's context, not mine. However, how can anyone who is science minded so quickly disregard such an evident pattern with no exploration whatsoever?

Just as with everything, it is not so much exploration of rodin's context, it is in exploring the underlying concept which he, by his own admission, does not fully understand.

reply to post by Bobathon


Perhaps we just view things differently. In science, i do not view it as some sort of competition where all concepts are to be disregarded if the context in which it is presented is not agreeable to my already present bias. i also do not view it that it is some sort of "court of law" where the "truth" is somehow inexorably found by subjective viewing of data and the arguments that ensue. It is a constant exploration tempered by patterns we have seen to be consistent.

What was the goal in 60+ pages of arguing? what was the time being used for productively? what was gained (on either side)?

Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is in why proposed scientifically minded people are more interested in arguing than in actually experimenting and testing. If one is to spend any time whatsoever on the topic, i would think the scientist would like to come to their own conclusions based on testing, rather than others (most likely flawed) contexts and the bigger the data collection pool, the better.

So, scientifically, what was the point of spending the time arguing such things (for 60+ pages) instead of just leaving well enough alone, or actually exploring it for yourself? Why even waste the time? edit: please note such questions are directed towards both sides (which i have tried to be clear about, though that can always be tricky)