ImprobableJoe
New Member
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
No... on account that he said that he'd found the "numerical fingerprint of god" or whatever it was.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Vortex based math
- Thread starter MillionSword
- Start date
No... on account that he said that he'd found the "numerical fingerprint of god" or whatever it was.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Maybe his problem is that he had an epiphany with patterns, and then attributed it to God.
:|
I'm reading here that the magnet creates a self-sustainable singularity of constant motion -
the error in logic is simple, however. If it was a self-sustaining singularity of both implosion/expulsion, then why does it require the magnet to be plugged in more than an instant - since the field would be a self-sustaining balanced force?
Could this have some implications as to the use and structure of electromagnetic fields? Probably.
Is it (as the paper claims) a self-sustained singularity? No.
Can it actually work? We'll see after a trip to the hardware store and consultation with a few of my EM pals on base. (I have to get them to sign off on such projects anyhow).
Let's see if this coil can do anything it claims.
:|
I'm reading here that the magnet creates a self-sustainable singularity of constant motion -
the error in logic is simple, however. If it was a self-sustaining singularity of both implosion/expulsion, then why does it require the magnet to be plugged in more than an instant - since the field would be a self-sustaining balanced force?
Could this have some implications as to the use and structure of electromagnetic fields? Probably.
Is it (as the paper claims) a self-sustained singularity? No.
Can it actually work? We'll see after a trip to the hardware store and consultation with a few of my EM pals on base. (I have to get them to sign off on such projects anyhow).
Let's see if this coil can do anything it claims.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Let me know when you have a blueprint.)O( Hytegia )O( said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:Let me know when you have a blueprint.)O( Hytegia )O( said:
4chan never ceases to disappoint me.
>Delivered
http://www.alexpetty.com/2009/09/27/36-point-rodin-coil-windings/
----------------
As with everything Electricity, I'm going to assume that one wire goes to the positive, and the other to the negative.
Memeticemetic
New Member
Seems like an awful waste of effort when all you really have to do to accomplish the same thing is this:
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Let me know when you put out the fire.)O( Hytegia )O( said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:Let me know when you put out the fire.)O( Hytegia )O( said:
I'm having an Electrician's Mate (EM) look at the designs as we speak - as to make sure that it won't -SPLOSHUN- my room.
MillionSword
New Member
Haha awesome. Can you film a demonstration of the coil Hytegia?
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
The Electrician's Mate said that it would short-circuit if the coils crossed like the did...?MillionSword said:
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
What? I don't think your mate knows that the wires are coted with an insulating wax.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
In the coils, they would be fine... But the Design doesn't call for wax insulation, and they are all touching each other.Master_Ghost_Knight said:
I'll talk to the EM on Monday to finalize some ideas to make this device NOT catch on fire.
FaithlessThinker
New Member
Hey I just looked a little more into TEDx since one of my friends showed me the video below, and I found this page http://www.ted.com/tedx which acts as a home page for TEDx. It seems your statement "talks wich are not orgaized by TED or has anything else to do with it" is wrong. Just wanna let you know.Master_Ghost_Knight said:
Anyway what do you think of this?
MillionSword
New Member
That's pretty cool, but way off topic.
FaithlessThinker
New Member
Yea I think I should give it a topic of its own. Alright no more discussions about Cola Life here.MillionSword said:
Edit: I've posted a Cola Life thread.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
Sorry to raise the dead here - but I didn't get final approval to hook up the device in my barracks, for fear of both electrocution, shorting out the electricity to the room, and wiping out some key equipment.
>.<
Wasn't the happiest piece of paper I've had returned to me with a denial.
MillionSword
New Member
Aw I was looking forward to the results lol.
fishyculture
New Member
OK, I am not "qualified" for this discussion, but sometimes the laymen see what the experts miss. I see lots of people just dismissing the vortex math, but I am not sure anyone here has watched anything but that very short Ted clip. I have watched about half of the "Introduction" videos by Randy Powell, and I see what he is saying and it seemslike it is worth serious investigation. If any of you experts have actually watched the series and can show errors in math (not just body language you do not like) I would be very interested. I'm just plain Jane from down the lane, but I see a whole lot going on here that is worth investigating. If experts refuse to give this a SERIOUS look, experts may find themselves looking very foolish in the near future. I can handle a debunking, came here seeking one, actually. What I found looks like professional prejudice. Is there anyone here who can prove this theory is wrong?
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
If it had only ended there.fishyculture said:
fishyculture said:
By the way you talk, I bet you just found this topic recently and you are completly oblivious to the fact that this is very likely older than you are.
You talk about "experts" as if it was a negative thing, when all it means is someone who has worked allot on a problem and understands it better than most everybody else. Is it possible that someone that just learned to play ping pong is capable of beating a ping pong champion? Yes. Is it likely? No!
People dismiss "vortex math" for a reason, a reason which you don't understand, because, as you have said, you are "not qualified for this discussion".
Keep this in mind because it is important.
On the contrary, the "experts" who dismiss this have actually taken the time to learn things like math and sciences, and such topics are not cryptic to them (as it naturally is for laymen). And when they hear talks like this, or what the proponents of "vortex math" are saying, they don't simply just hear the prety and sciency words. They know what those prety and sciency words mean, they know how they relate, they understand the concepts behind those words, and they can certainly tell the difference between actual content and giberish.
No one is going to show you the errors in their math, do to the simple fact that there is absolutly no math in it. It is just mathematy, sciency sounding giberish trough and trough, just piles of giberish on top of randomly asserted giberish on giberish mountain from the giberish kingdom. It is design to fool an uneducated audience into thinking that they are saying something exciting, important, revolutionary, sciency and futuristic while at the same time not saying anything that has any meaning what so ever. And it works because the layman don't know any better, they can't understand nothing of what they are saying. But ,they none the less, think that what they are saying might have a merit, and why wouldn't it be, after all the guy on the stage sounds so sure of himself. Fortunatly, the so called "experts" know better, and this is why they dismiss it for the hogh wash that it is.
You recognise that you have no idea of what they are saying, yet you think they have any merit, and that the people that know what they are talking about (and dismiss it as bunk) are being unfair. Why is that?
fishyculture
New Member
So I hear you say you are an expert and so YOU can understand why this is "bunk", but you cannot possibly explain it to me. While I have no training in electronics, I have a good deal of math education and a high IQ. You reply is merely puffing up your ego, you make no attempt to prove the MATH wrong. If you can prove the MATH is wrong, please do so. Otherwise, I will take it that you cannot disprove the theory.
CosmicJoghurt
New Member
fishyculture said:
Now hold on for a second. You said you weren't qualified for this discussion.
Now you're saying you have a deal of math education, to justify your claims and beliefs. You also say that you "scored well above 'genius'" in an IQ test. Please explain, because generally, an IQ above 160 is considered genius, and there's not much of a distinction well above that.
Unless you're in a 200 range which would imply you're only capable of using any brainpower to read your score, because you certainly disappoint us in the way you see this "vortex math".
Through this link and this link you demonstrate that you rely heavily on your own perception of the world, rather than an at-all-scientific understanding of, well, anything.
Which reminds me, as others have explained, there really is almost no math in this at all. It's a big pile of pseudo-scientific terms thrown at a wall and they're saying it's a painting.