Vortex based math

[MillionSword]

So does anyone have any thoughts on this?



My brother directed me to this, but the comments on the vid didn't exactly fill me with confidence and I don't even really know much about what the guy is talking about. Discuss away.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It didn't surprised me that you don't know what he is talking about. It is all rubish, it had litle to no content, it made no sense and the litle content it had was factualy wrong. It is just falcy of jargon, there is nothing else to it.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I agree with MGK. The reason you didn't understand what he was talking about is because he wasn't talking about anything. I mean, hey, for all I know maybe he has, indeed, unraveled the mathematical secrets of the universe; but he did and said literally nothing to demonstrate that that is true in his presentation. If his appeal to the scientific community for acceptance of his ideas was similarly devoid of content, it is absolutely no surprise to me that he is resorting to an appeal to the uneducated masses for funding.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

It's the good old ideomotor effect dressed up with some confusing language and big claims.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It's the good old ideomotor effect dressed up with some confusing language and big claims.

I think it was intentional. Why else would he dance arround in the room?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I know I abuse this clip, but...

 

[ExeFBM]

I like how his magnet can move a fairly large ball bearing from 3 meters away, and yet seems to leave his computer, right next to it, un-paperweighted.

 

[MillionSword]

Well I already knew that he was just meaninglessly stringing words together. When I said I don't know what he's talking about I meant I know nothing about the idea of using magnets for energy like this.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well I already knew that he was just meaninglessly stringing words together. When I said I don't know what he's talking about I meant I know nothing about the idea of using magnets for energy like this.

The idea of using magnets as an attempt to collect free energy is not new, in this case it is imployed nonsensical jargon to give the impression that there is some technical quork that we can't really grasp exactly what it is but it is there and it will allow us to get energy out of it.
But the cold reality of it, there is no free lunch. Imagine that you have a closed box "A" and a closed box "B", you can put whatever you want on the box "A" and you want to power anything you like on box "B", you can connect both boxes with electrical cable to transfer electricity and nothing else. If you look at the box "A" now and if you look at the box "A" in a day or 2 later and it is exactly in the same condition as it was beffore down to the smallest level, you can be absolutly sure that B didn't gain any power from A. This is a just an ilustrative means to describe the conservation of energy and how we can get energy, and it is a very powerfull statment. There is no free lunch, the way we power for instance our car is that we burn fuel in our engines, the burning of fuel is a chemical reaction that releases heat and prodcues work by the expansion of gases. And even tough you get the energy to power your car, the fuel is converted in to carbon oxides and water never to return to its original state, well technically you could reverse them to their original state but it will the take the consuption of even larger ammount ammounts of energy to do so than which you can take from burning it. Plants take their energy from the sun and it seams that the process could be sustained almost indefinitively, however the sun itself has to go trough nuclear fusion to realease the light the plants need, converting hidrogen into higher elements that will simply not revert back. This has many consequences which fo now I will leave out not to lose track of te conversation.

If someone says that you have a machine X that gives you free energy while indefinitively without having to feed anything in return, you can know that the machine doesn't work the way it claims to even before you know what that machine is. And you can use this rule of thumb confidently that there must be something wrong with such claims and that there is a mistake being made or omited.
In this particular case it's a magnetical confusion, the energy you can get from acelerating an object with a magnet comes from the fact that object is falling in a magnetic well (and the "height" inside tha well is how much energy the system has), but once inside the well your system is done and you have to take it out if you want to reset the system and to do so you will have to put back that same amount of energy that you would get by doing the process in reverse. See it has a playing field with mountains and valeys and the game is to rise to the higuest inthe sky as possible, what it is being attempted here is go up and down mountains and valeys in smartly way so that when you return to the top of your original mountain you are at a higher altitude then where you were at the begining.
There is 2 tricks being employed to decieve the audience:
1. Is to give the false notion that motion=power, in fact that is not the case, any object in motion that stays in motion in the exact same way has no output of power. You can put a marble rolling arround in a vacum tube and floating over magnets until the end of the world and not have any power involved. Only when there is a change in velocity (=> aceleration => force => transmition of energy) there is power (either in or out of the system depending if it acelearing or slowing down).
2. The system is not perfect and as such it will inevitably dicipate power due to friction, and by moving arround it camuflages the fact that he is introducing energy to the system by tilting the dish arround.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

The fact that he holds that glass bowl in his hand instead of setting it down on a level surface speaks a lot. He could be just shaking it to make the ball move, for all you know.

And he didn't even wait for questions. (Don't TED videos usually have a Q&A session in the end?)

there is no free launch.

Free lunch you mean.

I knew this has something to do with the super-efficiency fantasies. Nice write-up.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If you go to this asshole's website, you get a link to a second asshole's website, where you can find this bit of 1000% stupid and crazy nonsense:

Marko studied all the world's great religions. He decided to take The Most Great Name of Bahaullah (prophet of the Bahai Faith) which is Abha and convert it into numbers. He did this in an effort to discover the true precise mystical intonation of The Most Great Name of God. Since the Bahai sacred scripture was originally written in Persian and Arabic, Marko used the Abjad numerical notation system for this letter to number translation. This was a sacred system of allocating a unique numerical value to each letter of the 27 letters of the alphabet so that secret quantum mechanic physics could be encoded into words. What Marko discovered was that (A=1, b=2, h=5, a=1) = 9. The fact that The Most Great Name of God equaled 9 seemed very important to him as everything he had read in both the Bahai scriptures and other religious text spoke of nine being the omni-potent number. So next he drew out a circle with nine on top and 1 through 8 going around the circle clockwise. Then he discovered a very intriguing number system within this circle. Marko knew he had stumbled upon something very profound. This circle with its hidden number sequence was the "Symbol of Enlightenment." This is the MATHEMATICAL FINGERPRINT OF GOD.

So fucking insane that it makes my brain hurt. This isn't science, it is religious numerology with silly graphics.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm going to recreate this experiment in my room -
firstly, because I'm interested in the proposal that it claims. If the test is up for peer-review, then the papers should be available, along with the researched formulas. I have both the budget, the means, and the interest to seek such a venture.

And, who knows? If it wasn't a load of shit - I could theoretically use the principle to make a self-sustainable vortex system, using the energy from the metal ball's motion to power a similar magnet to energize the motion of the ball. (minus Friction and motion, of course)

Bleh. It's 0029. I'm half-asleep and shouldn't have been typing this anyhow. But I do plan on recreating this experiment.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

And he didn't even wait for questions. (Don't TED videos usually have a Q&A session in the end?)

Unfortunatly this is not an official TED talks, it is an independently organized talk under the TEDx name, the idea of TEDx is to promote TED like talks wich are not orgaized by TED or has anything else to do with it

And thx for the crrection.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Unfortunatly this is not an official TED talks, [...]

Ah!! that explains... a lot! It's like the "creation science" version of TED.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Okay - how about this:

If the guy wasn't trying to hulk pounds and pounds of drivel and bullshit in with the mathematics - what makes the mathematics wrong? Let's concentrate less on the idiocy that he's stapling to it, and how about we concentrate on the mathematics?

If he actually stumbled upon something by pure happenstance, the religious bullshit about the universe being comprised of numbers would be just a coincidence.

Let's get SCIENTIFIC in this mofo!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Okay - how about this:

If the guy wasn't trying to hulk pounds and pounds of drivel and bullshit in with the mathematics - what makes the mathematics wrong? Let's concentrate less on the idiocy that he's stapling to it, and how about we concentrate on the mathematics?

If he actually stumbled upon something by pure happenstance, the religious bullshit about the universe being comprised of numbers would be just a coincidence.

Let's get SCIENTIFIC in this mofo!

I don't think there's any mathematics in there. There's some arithmetic at the beginning, but that's about all. Then all I see is numbers twisted up on diagrams, where he leaves some out where they don't fit, and then sticks them back in and takes out other ones to make those fit a different pattern. The foundation of all of it is a religious claim, that because these are magical numbers in "godly" configurations, suddenly contemporary physics no longer applies to objects that they claim are designed along those number patterns.

It was the famous math and science writer & skeptic Martin Gardner who first turned me on to the "magical" nature of numbers probably 25 years ago. He had a column in some magazine or other, and I picked up a whole box of them at a used book store for like $5. He would do sort of card tricks without the cards, using numbers organized in certain ways to produce rather amazing results. If you take numbers and juggle them around enough, they will appear to do pretty wild stuff, but it is just the way math works. Card counters use it to stack the odds in their favor at the blackjack table. Hobbyist magicians have been using these sort of tricks for years to make you think they have magical ability, when all they have is the ability to count and do some hasty math in their head. Math students have been drawing Pascal's Triangle on the corner of their tests for centuries.

In this case, some douche named Marko Rodin has found some basic patterns and assigned nonsensical meaning to them. Now he's trying to use it to scam people out of their money... apparently starting with speaking fees for him and his partner Randy Powell at various crackpot conventions that charge hundreds of dollars for attendance, plus more money for the individual workshops. He's also got a plan to scam money out of the government for Vortex Math schools in Hawaii, and then your general "free energy" scams.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

He's also got a plan to scam money out of the government for Vortex Math schools in Hawaii, and then your general "free energy" scams.

I'm in Hawaii...

There's somewhat of an energy crisis here, so he's picked the perfect spot for such a scam.

Still - I'm going to reproduce this test in my room. There have to be charts, diagrams, and designs SOMEWHERE on the internet. You can call a crackpot a crackpot all you want - but until you can call him on his bullshit in a way other people can understand, then you'll go nowhere.

So I checked his theorem again, and apparently the reason his computer and camera didn't suffer hard-reformatting was because they were not within the device's "Area of effect" or the magnetic field it generates supposedly in the diagram, condensing ultimately to a singular point and condensing outwards to be pulled into the singular point again.
As he's claiming - a "Vortex" that would condense into a self-sustaining point before being pulled out and pushed back inwards again by the magnetic pull that it's generating. His claim would make the survival of his computer and camera plausible - though I still don't have the faintest idea of how he came up with that.

Odds are that he's a con... But let's prove it.
(I can finally use the word "Prove" correctly in this post)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Odds are that he's a con... But let's prove it.
(I can finally use the word "Prove" correctly in this post)

I'm not sure he's provided enough actual information to do anything of the sort. I'm with you that it would be cool to test a specific design, but without blueprints what can you do?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well science there is none. What we see here is the typical mistake of someone who neither knows math or science. Math alone can not establish any facts about reality simply because math isn't real, have you ever seen a physical number 3? Or infinitely thin lines that sretch away trough infinity? On the other hand math doesn't incorporate real objects, you can not find the square root of a chair or multiple 2 sticks togheter to make a table.
This of course is not to say that the world we live in can not be understand by mathematics, or that reality it doesn't ruthlessly follow mathematically described principles with a mathematical precison, mathematics is the best tool to relate quantities and it has been a irreplaceable tool in science, but one has to distinguish the 2 because they are indeed not the same.
When we apply mathematical principles to the real world like the simple act of counting what we are doing is establish a paralel with the objects we find in the real world and the propreties we know from the abstract tool of mathematics, and if they are consistent then we can say that we have a mathematical model of the real world. For instance when counting the number of rocks on a table by associating the abstract concept of 1 to each individual rock, and while you put more rocks on the table you establish the paralel between putting them togheter and addition and you sucessfully "add" "1" (rock) to the ones you had before. And nobody would doubt for a second that this "addition" would be a good model for the process of counting rocks as you put them on the table, the number you associate to an individual rock and the result you get is consistent in both the abstract and physical case. Now take the exact same problem and apply them to counting droplets of water as you drip them into the table, when you put the first drop you will get 1 on the table but when you try to put what was supoused to be the second 1 both drops merge togheter leaving you still with only one drop of water on the table. So what happen then? Is not 1+1=2? Or was it rather that your mathematical model simply did not applyed to whatever physical thing you wanted to quantify?
Of course this is a rather simplistic ilustration of the problem, but the only qualitative difference between this and a real physics problem is that the models involved are not so simple and the sucess is not so obvious. It doesn't really matter thatn you were able to come up with the most elegant equations of physics to try and explain absolutly everything, that you can show how easy it is to work and it would revolutionized the world if it was real, because it worths absolutly nothing if it is just not real. And you can not use math to show what is real and what it is not, because I can build a million different constructs and all contradict each other, they can not all be right but none the less you can work them all right mathematically. To see what is real and what is not you have to look at the world, because the world is there but what you expected from it may not be.

So on this alone it is dead and buryed. But lets take a look at the math.

The math is simply wrong, this mumbo jumbo is part of the "sacred geometry" and numerology nut sack. What it basicly is, if you can find a set of numbers and arrange them in someway and that allowas you to make some squigly shape that looks recognizeable then that is a powerfull thing and it is pure energy of the pyramid of ancient pharaos stuff. Frankly speaking I am a bit disapointed, because being mathematics very versatile, and can be used to described anything, one would think that would have been able to do a better job and comeup with better squigles.

So let's go to squigle number 1:
A wheel with numbers from 1 to 9 with every number connected togheter in a butterfly shape except for 3, 6 and 9 which are united by a triangle.
The guy in the presentation didn't explain how the squigles came about, but I have already seen this bunk before here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9EII6_dt-A (ps. check the guy in the front row). Not that the original guy did explain what is it for anyway, but for the purpouse of my ilustration is enough to show you further what is wrong.
The idea you satrt from one and then you multiply by 2 and do the digital sum to get to the next number, and you keep doing that. So we have 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5 and then the cycle repeats. Notice that odds and evens come in packs of 3 and that it never passes trough the numbers 3, 6 and 9 and that there is no 0 on the wheel. Why is that?
This is due to the propreties of digital sumation, digital sumation is not a meanigfull mathetamical operation but it is rather closely tight to the way we represent numbers, it is comutative and associative. For any random string of digits, for no matter what order you use to add them togheter as long as you add them until you get to a single digit, the result will allways be the same. It also presents the proprety that adding 9 is the same as not adding anything, this is due to the fact that we work in base 10 and 9 is the last single digit number because once you add any other single digit number you will have to carry a one. Since 10-1=9 as long as n<10, 9+n=10+n-1 i.e. 10+(n-1) but because you have an extra 1 to make the 10 it will compensate the one you subtracted and therefore you allwasy get n in a digital sum of 9 and n in base 10.If you were working in base 5 however this role would have been played by the number 4, on base 16 by the number 15, on base "b" by "b-1".
So why is there no zero? Because any digital sum of any number never renders a zero unless the number is zero, because the sum of any 2 single digit numbers which is not zero will either produce a number which is a single or a 2 digit number. If it is a 2 digit number you haven't reached the end of the process and therefore you can sum again 2 single digit numbers togheter (but in this case one of the numbers is at least not zero), any sum of 2 single digit numbers that gives a single digit number is identical to the trivial sum and you can't sum 2 numbers togheter to get a smaller one.
Why it never passes trough the number 3, 6 and 9? Because you are working with powers of 2 (not multiple of 3) and then having a digital sum on the final number, if the digital sum is a multiple of 3 then the number is a multiple of 3, since a power of 2 is never a multiple of 3 therefore the digital sum could have never been a multiple of 3. This works once again because we are working in base 10, if we were working in some other base, this would no longer be true.
So why do odds and evens come in clusters. Well take a look at the sequence, because when you multiple a odd number by 2 you get a even number, a digital sum will not be even if it becomesa 2 digit number because then we have an extra 1, and if you look at the sequence what determines if the next number is going to be odd or even is if the current number is either bigger or smaller than 5 (i.e. critical line 2*5=10). And that happens to be the sequence because 1 2 4 and 8 and the first numbers, the others are out so you are left with 5 and 7 (tha must also be necessarilly included due to a more complicated theorem involving primes), and because this is a digital sum any multiplication by any number provides the same end result either you do it before or after you have done the digital sum (i.e. b*(n+m)=b*n+b*m ), so the sequence must be cyclic.
So basically any claims about the physical world made with this squigles is done so under the shear coincidence that we evolved to have 10 fingers and that we are using the arabic system to represent numbers, have we evolved to have just 8 like some other species then the physical reality would have been completly different I supouse. But that is not the worst part of it, because the guy jumps right out to the graphical apearence of an infinity symbol. First of all that is not how the infinity symbol looks like. Secondly even if it was like that, the sape of the inifinity symbol is arbitrary, there is nothing in mathematics that says how the symbol for infinity must look like, we just happened to adopt that one. Thirdly it even only made the symbol that it did becuase he had arbitrarily arranged the numbers into a circle, had he arranged it someother arbitrary way it might have looked like something else. Forthly and why should it bear any significance?

After that there is a bunch of shit that is simply does not follow.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

pfft.. look what's on the end of the paper: http://markorodin.com/media/Compressed_Marko_Rodin_Tesla_Tech_Article_June_14th_2010.pdf
Is anyone surprised?

Edit: Holy crap his site has alliens and shit. I knew he was crazy but this is a damn nut gold mine.