vortex based mathmatics

[the wiggle baron]

Eugh, god. Watched further and he does actually start to do something with this stuff...but fucking hell, it is SO dry. half an hour that could have been explained perfectly clearly in 5 minutes. Literally out now. Jeeeeeeesus christ.

[SunkLo]

Hah so you bail, but then you don't really bail, and then he starts to make sense and you bail for the opposite reason?

[parson]

what happened to the other monster thread about this stuff?

it got locked and deleted so i started this one

[magma]

Substantiate it!!

This. Discoveries in every other area of science lead to *technology* proving the underlying science. Until that arrives, this is just people spouting clever sounding words on the Internet.

Prove it without a shadow of a doubt, like a real scientist, or accept the inevitable disrespect.

[d-T-r]

Substantiate it!!

This. Discoveries in every other area of science lead to *technology* proving the underlying science. Until that arrives, this is just people spouting clever sounding words on the Internet.

Prove it without a shadow of a doubt, like a real scientist, or accept the inevitable disrespect.

It is somewhat presumptuous to disdain or condemn as fake that which does not appear likely." –

Montaigne ...

And Simon (mind if i call you that ) what exactly is a real scientist? to say that something is fake just because our current technology is just about scrapiing the surface of this stuff is a massive leap. of course believing anything without exploring it also is as well. Best not to take sides. Those real scientists you spoke of were the byproduct of alchemists,mystics,shamans,philosophers etc etc. If you can define the boundaries of what is 'real' then you can decide what is and what isn't

[d-T-r]

if you want some concrete vortex mathematics, Look up the Torus energy field. you might just find it under your nose and everywhere else




http://harmonicresolution.com/Toroidal%20Space.htm

[magma]

And Simon (mind if i call you that ) what exactly is a real scientist? to say that something is fake just because our current technology is just about scrapiing the surface of this stuff is a massive leap. of course believing anything without exploring it also is as well. Best not to take sides. Those real scientists you spoke of were the byproduct of alchemists,mystics,shamans,philosophers etc etc. If you can define the boundaries of what is 'real' then you can decide what is and what isn't

Of course you can call me that.

A real scientist is someone that follows the scientific method. It's a pretty loose description, I'm not talking about people necessarily aligned to universities or in paid positions - someone that applies the scientific method to solving problems... the scientific method requires proof, ideas aren't enough. Plenty of Alchemists were real scientists... they are absolutely the fore-runners of today's chemists and physicists... but that doesn't mean they're any more reliable, especially when we're several centuries removed from a lot of their work.

When it comes to cosmological maths, possible 'shapes' (that's a pretty difficult concept in more than 3 dimensions) of the Universe and the mathematics underpinning ridiculously abstracted systems like Quantum Mechanics, then there are literally thousands, even millions of current possibilities... a good way to get a feel for quite how "open" the playing field still is, is to read John D. Barrow's "Book of Universes" where he follows the story of much of the investigations into cosmology arising from Relativity and, more recently, arising from Quantum Mechanics. It's pretty outlandish at times and broke my brain on several occasions, but since reading it I've been able to appreciate the subject vastly better than I could before.



To cut a 13.5 billion year story short, our understanding of the beginning, expansion and ultimate 'shape' of the Universe is still underpinned by a few proven theories (General Relativity mainly) that leave a vast amount undefined - the quest is to either find better rules that allow for less uncertainty (hopefully through advances in QM) or to test as many options as possible within the uncertainty until you find a model that fits perfectly (unlikely we'll find one this way - but it's thrown up so many interesting discoveries that it's worth carrying on).... at the moment, we're still stuck on the 2nd one. Reading a book like the one I mentioned above is a great way to appreciate how much fumbling in the dark "real scientists" do on this subject.... it's not about finding a single theory that fits pretty well and then deciding that's the one - it's about trying thousands and learning a little bit from each one. Once we truly understand the Universe, it'll be obvious - we'll start manipulating it like with everything else we've ever understood.

tl:dr - I'm absolutely not saying this is wrong, fake or evil. I'm just pointing out it's only one of tens of millions of options suggested by Einstein's theories. Learn from it, don't assume it's the truth...

[Ricky_Spanish]

Its kind of dissapointing in how quick some people are to simply believe a youtube video. In this case, for some people, youtube > 2000 years of the scientific method and M-theory. Lets see if this guy can submit any kind of theory for peer review and whether anything he said can be experimentally verified. (In physics forums Mark Rodin is NOT well respected).

If you're looking for ultimate geometry how about this:



thats a 6-dimensional shape at every point in planckian space (10^-25M) the exact shape of which gives all universal parameters. If the universe has DNA, then it this is it.

[the wiggle baron]

...quickly have to add a MASSIVE lol @ Nassim Haramein

[d-T-r]

lol at people bothering to attempt to further understand things in non conventional and experimental ways

what an absurd way of addressing this completely logical universe

we obviously already know all there is to know

'my physixcxs is better than ur physizbxzzx'

[the wiggle baron]

nah, lol at that heinembenrms guy for making money off idiots

[magma]

lol at people bothering to attempt to further understand things in non conventional and experimental ways

what an absurd way of addressing this completely logical universe

we obviously already know all there is to know

'my physixcxs is better than ur physizbxzzx'

Not sure if you're replying to me, but that definitely what I was intending to say!

It's not about one man's physics being better than another's, it's about being aware of just how many possibilities can fit perfectly within the known laws of the Universe (Relativity, QM etc etc). General Relativity, for example, has an awful lot of undefined or at least unobserved/assumed constants, which means if you want to start working with it you have to make some assumptions about what those constants might be - by picking various values, you can describe any of an almost infinite number of possible Universes. All are absolutely correct according to the laws of relativity, but the chances of any single one of them being identical to our Universe at this point are excessively slim - the game at the moment isn't to luck out and happen upon a Universe so beautiful it simply must be correct, it's to work within "interesting" universes in order to design experiments that we can perform in our Universe and see if the same thing happens.

Essentially - just because a Universe model works mathematically doesn't mean it's correct, it only means it's interesting (and that if there really are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere, it exists somewhere!)

[d-T-r]

lol at people bothering to attempt to further understand things in non conventional and experimental ways

what an absurd way of addressing this completely logical universe

we obviously already know all there is to know

'my physixcxs is better than ur physizbxzzx'

Not sure if you're replying to me, but that definitely what I was intending to say!

It's not about one man's physics being better than another's, it's about being aware of just how many possibilities can fit perfectly within the known laws of the Universe (Relativity, QM etc etc). General Relativity, for example, has an awful lot of undefined or at least unobserved/assumed constants, which means if you want to start working with it you have to make some assumptions about what those constants might be - by picking various values, you can describe any of an almost infinite number of possible Universes. All are absolutely correct according to the laws of relativity, but the chances of any single one of them being identical to our Universe at this point are excessively slim - the game at the moment isn't to luck out and happen upon a Universe so beautiful it simply must be correct, it's to work within "interesting" universes in order to design experiments that we can perform in our Universe and see if the same thing happens.

Essentially - just because a Universe model works mathematically doesn't mean it's correct, it only means it's interesting (and that if there really are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere, it exists somewhere!)

nah twas aimed at wiggle baron for the lol'ing.

It's all good though. It go's to show how much our individual perception crafts our direct experience of what reality/the universe is.

the science of spirit and the spirit of science are slowly revealing themselves to be the same thing i think.

we'll keep decoding messages from the void whether we know what it is or not and thats all we can do. All of our difefrent mehtods/viewpoints will merge soon enough and we'll realize we were all looking at the same thing but we were just focusing on our own areas of detailed inetrest.

but yes, possibilities, lots of them. choose at will.

weird/fun universe anyway. in-out-on-off-up-down-we-go.

[DRTY]

[Shum]

[magma]

It's all good though. It go's to show how much our individual perception crafts our direct experience of what reality/the universe is.

the science of spirit and the spirit of science are slowly revealing themselves to be the same thing i think.

we'll keep decoding messages from the void whether we know what it is or not and thats all we can do. All of our difefrent mehtods/viewpoints will merge soon enough and we'll realize we were all looking at the same thing but we were just focusing on our own areas of detailed inetrest.

but yes, possibilities, lots of them. choose at will.

weird/fun universe anyway. in-out-on-off-up-down-we-go.

Word.

The thing that shines through about scientists when you get to know them is that basically, they're you or me but with the money, permission and machinery available to test out their hare-brained theories in incredibly high-tech facilities. Of course, once you've got a long education in the 'basics' behind you, things might not be quite so hare-brained, but it doesn't stop hundreds of people going mental building particle accelerators to try and prove the Universe is made up of vibrating strings of condensed energy and using lasers to freeze tiny animals within an inch of absolute zero and then revive them to try and test the quantum behaviour of organisms... having the machinery to run the experiments is, unfortunately, the biggest stumbling block for a lot of the theories that exist outside the scientific community (i.e. academia and corporate research groups) because when it comes to defining a new Universe - anyone with a pencil, some squared paper, a graphic calculator and a LOT of spare time can do it... the trick to the described Universe being useful is in testing it... and without the radio telescopes, particle accelerators and top notch optics (I was recently astounded to find out how much glass can cost ), the average bedroom mathematician is going to find it hard to actually test the theory that he creates.

With any luck, the lucky geeks getting to tinker with billion pound gadgets will make a breakthrough that allows us to all get involved a bit more directly... who knows, we might all have full control over something 100 times more powerful than Hubble in a few decades or be able to smash atoms in the living room... but until then anyone can have a theory, only the privileged nerds can get results.

[mks]

I just wanted to make a point that some people have touched on a bit.

All universal phenomena will be a mystery until we evolve our consciousness enough to understand it.

If I would have told you 150 years ago that we will be flying all around the world in large jet airplanes, that we will have portable computation devices and that we will transmit invisible signals all over that will be trans coded in to audible sound and visible images, you would have thought I was crazy. In fact many would act like some do in this thread and in similar threads I've seen on this forum.

We did not invent electricity, rather humans finally evolved enough in knowledge to understand it and harness it.

Judging by some of the replies here and some that will probably come in, you people most likely would have believed the Earth is flat simply because there was not any available empirical knowledge at the time to prove it otherwise. It did not mean that you were right. Good thing that there were people who decided to believe further than the status quo and eventually discovered and proved some of these things.

I'm not trying to be derogatory, just saying that sometimes you need to think bigger than whatever the current standard is.

In my personal opinion, this does includes scientific fact and there are still a whole lot of theories. Science will evolve just as it always has.

"No problem can be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it" - Albert Einstein

Somehow this quote seems so appropriate here.

[d-T-r]

but until then anyone can have a theory, only the privileged nerds can get results.

true to an extent, but this is what the ultimate point of psychedelics was intended for. IF ever we're to find secrets of the universe, i reckon directly inside our brain would be a pretty good place to start.

smoke some DMT or drink some ayawaska and see what you think about vortex's and just about everything else

(disclaimer---no one should smoke DMT or do ayawaska unless they feel the need to, if people want to do it, look it up thoroughly )

[noam]

supposedly when James Cook was sailing around Australia, the natives, having never observed a 106 foot long Galleon like the one he was captaining, almost totally ignored it whenever it passed them

there is an idea that the ship was almost invisible to them since it was supposedly so far out of their perception of reality to even register its existence

[mks]

This is in reference to the post I put up yesterday regarding magnetic energy devices. While superconductors are probably not a new concept for many of you, there is still some great scientific research being done is this field. I feel that a self-perpetuating magnetic device is not an unreasonable goal. This is Quantum Levitation: