"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And yes, a dream can be like a person.

???????????????????????????????????
And my hovercraft can be full of eels.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And what do you mean "no" in your other post? Do you honestly believe that a black hole was formed in Rodin's torus?

I think he's referring to sucking energy out of the vacuum.

No smilies can fix complete stupor of this claim.

We use words for a reason, such as that we are able to communicate. As Arb and others noted, it's typical for charlatans to hijack the dictionary and assign random meanings to various words... Regardless, black holes do not suck energy from vacuum, and neither does Rodin's toroidal coil. So pray tell, why do we have to engage in talking about this nonsense?

Again, he was pretty clear in his video, and emphasized verbally, that he had created a black hole. Garbage.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
my sense is that would not happen in today's environment. The scientist would not feel free to say such a thing.

Well, you could ask some scientists if your sense is correct or not. But since you tend to not believe what real scientists tell you, I'm not sure if there's a point in asking if you're not going to believe the answer anyway.

Even in the example of the benzene ring shape discovery being inspired from a dream, the dream wasn't exactly right. He dreamt of little snakes eating themselves and the benzene ring had nothing to do with snakes.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It's not uncommon that a solution to the problem you are working on presents itself in a few days or weeks, and it's not relevant whether this happens in waking hours or maybe when you are going to sleep. This is the way brain works, it can run processes in the background. That's all there is to it.

And again, Rodin is a dufus. Just thought I'd add that for a good measure.

reply to post by buddhasystem

So pray tell, why do we have to engage in talking about this nonsense?

Nobody is forcing this conversation upon you... last I checked it was Mary's thread..

Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation about physics... one where you can't stroke Rodin's misrepresented positions as your pet straw man.

The confrontation stage of the argument was never properly addressed.

Just as it is pointless to have a discussion with someone who reguses to abide by any discussion rules, it also makes no sense to have a discussion with someone who will not commit himself to any starting points. In order to resolve a difference of opinion, both parties must have in common some minimum of facts, beliefs, norms, and value hierarchies. If they cannot agree on any of these, they will never succeed in convincing each other of the acceptability of any standpoint. Ultimately, the defense of a standpoint rests on some set of statements that are acceptable to both parties. (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans. Argumentation, p. 128

You may remember a few of these posts a while back in this thread, if you read them at the time - and the concept of a philosophical presupposition which appears to be a foreign concept to those who feel important in their self-centered, self-constructed universe...

zero
one
two
three
four
five

And all the rest of my posts in this and the haramein thread, etc. I am too lazy to look through all of my old posts right now, but I am sure I made it fairly clear early on that we were arguing past each other with different philosophical presuppositions and academic approaches to the material. Your party consistently refuses to address such presuppositions(perhaps you were turned off by the word 'philosophy' - which is childlike behavior), so we never achieved the proper opening stage for considering Rodin's views.

Of course, if we had... then the entire discussion would be oriented differently and you wouldn't be able to self-aggrandize around your convenient straw man positions.

I again invite you over to my other thread, I am curious to see your arguments in an environment without such conveniences.

Mary, I invite you there as well of course... and sorry for plugging my own thread, but I can't stand the pettifogging around straw men every time I check back into this thread. I want to see these people become proper antagonists (and preferably protagonists as well) in a clear-cut argument for once.

Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It's not uncommon that a solution to the problem you are working on presents itself in a few days or weeks, and it's not relevant whether this happens in waking hours or maybe when you are going to sleep. This is the way brain works, it can run processes in the background. That's all there is to it.

And again, Rodin is a dufus. Just thought I'd add that for a good measure.

Rodin may be a dufus, but the math should be investigated first to see if anything good comes out of it.
I just don't believe the story that he weaves in with the math.

Anyway, I'm skeptical of Einstein's equation E=mc^2

Physicists have praised Einstein's formula, E = mc2 as the discovery of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum, c2 and its mediation between mass (m) and energy (e). In fact, the formula is said to hold the key to the conversion between mass and energy. Charles William Johnson, in his most recent book, Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion, shows that Einstein's formula has its origin in the imaginary formula c9 = c7 c2, and does not represent the conversion of mass|energy.

To illustrate the confusion about mass|energy inherent in Einstein's formula Charles W. Johnson walks the reader through the formula's computational steps. The numerical expressions for Planck energy, 1.9561 and Planck mass, 2.17644 are commonly substituted for the terms of E and m respectively in Einstein's formula: 1.9561 = 2.17644 times 8.987551787, thus, 1.9651 = 1.9561. This apparent relation of equivalency is often cited as the confirmation of Einstein's formula for the conversion of mass|energy.

However, Johnson reminds us that c is the upper speed limit for a light photon: 299792458 meters/second, and that matter|energy cannot travel faster than that velocity. Thus, he contends that the square of that number produces an imaginary number without any existence in spacetime. Johnson also points out that Planck constants are based not only c-square, but more imaginatively on c3 , c4 , c5 , c6 and c7. If c-square produces an unreal number, then Johnson asks that we imagine how even more unreal are these higher powers.

reply to post by -PLB-


The New World Order agenda is a huge topic and it's not the topic of this thread.

Suffice it to say that the PTB are ruthless and they control finance. They control governments and they control the entire society. They do it with deception.

If you are content and everyone you know is content with the ways of the world then perhaps you like the New World Order agenda, or, you haven't researched the topic at all.

Those who know about the NWO agenda, don't like it, and want to do something about it I believe do so by simply communicating with others in any way they can. That's all anyone can do. Once enough people wake up to lies being told, they then look for ways to not support the agenda by going along with it.

If you are sincerely curious I would just do a search of existing threads, if I were you.

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Rodin may be a dufus, but the math should be investigated first to see if anything good comes out of it.

Regardless of "investigation" (because Rodin takes it only as far as number properties not uncommon in math), there is a huge leap in proclaiming that something interesting needs to happen in the center of that torus -- I know you agree to that.

Thing is, what is observable in the center of the torus is the electromagnetic field created by the coil. Basic logic tells us that if you create same field (complete with time dependence) by other means (of which there are many), we must observe same phenomena as Rodin claims he did in his torus. And there is no connection whatsoever between the field configuration and the exotic phenomena he claims take place. He says zero on that subject.

I mean it's really that shallow.

The difference between Rodin's "math" (although I don't believe that term is applicable) and real applied math is that the latter always formulates a model. An oscillator can be described with a differential equation. More terms can be added to account for damping and such. And you know, real world phenomena just tend to be described well by equations like that. In electrostatics, the Poisson equation also provides a model for calculation of the field. Rodin can't calculate jack. However, that doesn't stop him from claiming that he magically "sucks energy out of the vacuum", as Mary put it. Oh boy.

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Rodin may be a dufus, but the math should be investigated first to see if anything good comes out of it.

It's not even math, it's numerology.

I read Rodin's entire paper entitled Vortex Based Mathematics, and the one part of his paper that seems to be reasonably accurate and plausible is the description of the physical construction of his coil. It is a coil, in the shape of a torus, and he describes the materials used, etc. But as far as I can tell, the physical description of his coil is the only part of the entire paper which makes any sense. The properties of the coil appear to be fictitious and he babbles a lot of other nonsense like the number 9 is the dark matter particle. You can't even investigate something like that; it doesn't even make any sense, since the number 9 isn't a particle.

Anyway, I'm skeptical of Einstein's equation E=mc^2

World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc2

Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-Deltamc^2/E=(-1.4+/-4.4)times10^-7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.

If it's accurate to within 0.00004%, that's close enough for me. The source you cited doesn't make much sense either.

Deny ignorance.

"The Relativity Fraud"

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
"The Relativity Fraud"

So that guy thinks the twin paradox is really a paradox? If you want to wallow in ignorance, believe whatever he tells you.

Alternatively, if you want to educate yourself, you can read why it's not even really a paradox here:

The Twin Paradox

People who claim it is are just advertising their ignorance. For one thing, they don't seem to know what an inertial frame of reference is, which is key to understanding why there's no paradox.

Originally posted by 547000
If people dream up answers, they're usually accepted as long as their observations with reality is consistent.

Exactly!

But MR keeps sidling around this point - I'm pretty sure she's trying to make a case for dreams to b counted as science......without actually doing so.

Perhaps she's hoping someone will dream up a way that it can happen??!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul




You sound like you're gossiping with your neighbor.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You sound like you're gossiping with your neighbor.

Still sounds better than chat with themselves -- like you, Mary.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So pray tell, why do we have to engage in talking about this nonsense?

Nobody is forcing this conversation upon you...

True! At the same time, it's a low hanging fruit. I have enough work at my place of employment to be spending significant effort elsewhere.

So I'm getting my kicks out of that. Time to relax.

reply to post by beebs


Oh, zip it buddy. The only reason you want to redefine philosophic presuppositions is because you want to invent a universe where what you say is true. It's even possible to invent a universe where you are God if you redefine philosophical presuppositions enough. This is a futile attempt, like trying to get a moral absolutist and a moral relativist to agree.

reply to post by buddhasystem

True! At the same time, it's a low hanging fruit. I have enough work at my place of employment to be spending significant effort elsewhere.

So I'm getting my kicks out of that. Time to relax.

For real?

reply to post by 547000

Oh, zip it buddy. The only reason you want to redefine philosophic presuppositions is because you want to invent a universe where what you say is true. It's even possible to invent a universe where you are God if you redefine philosophical presuppositions enough. This is a futile attempt, like trying to get a moral absolutist and a moral relativist to agree.

No... I want you to understand that you already have certain presuppositions whether you think you do or not.

Walk the Walk, buddy

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000

 

Oh, zip it buddy. The only reason you want to redefine philosophic presuppositions is because you want to invent a universe where what you say is true. It's even possible to invent a universe where you are God if you redefine philosophical presuppositions enough. This is a futile attempt, like trying to get a moral absolutist and a moral relativist to agree.

No... I want you to understand that you already have certain presuppositions whether you think you do or not.

Walk the Walk, buddy

I am God. If you disagree let's talk about your misguided presumptions can't we?

Oh please, this is like trying to convince those who believe fetuses are humans that they are not or vice versa. Good luck with it.

Originally posted by beebs
No... I want you to understand that you already have certain presuppositions whether you think you do or not.

Beebs,

look, you expressed your opinion (completely unsupported by experiment) that particles are all harmonics ansd subharmonics. Noting that somebody else has "presuppositions" is way too rich in these circumstances.

Doesn't coldfusion violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics