Thread: Is there any truth to this?

Well, if he's right, that would be great. A lot of his speech seems like technobable, but then again, if he really is at the forefront of mathmatics, none of us here are really qualified to say whether he's wrong or right. We will just have to wait and see what other people in his field say, or if he can actually produce ethearon driven endless power generation.

But he's probably just full of shit or delusional.

Looks like a strong case of narcissistic personality disorder. It was entirely nonsense and the telling sign (aside from the claims about his obtaining God-like mastery of reality) is that he makes absolutely no attempt to explain himself. It's doublethink; he knows he hasn't really discovered the secrets of the universe. Opening himself up to criticism would jeopardise his position as the most important person in history, and is thus impossible. By intentionally making the nonsense impenetrable he gets to avoid any analysis and tell himself that this was the failure of others to understand his genius rather than his failure to communicate anything of substance.

You could post this in Inner Sanctum though, where they have a fully consistent and logical picture of reality, inaccessible to our insane minds, and would completely understand everything the guy said.

Stopped listening at "Numbers ARE reality."

I think I became mildly sceptical at 'vortex based mathematics', highly pessimistic at the (completely irrelevant?) footage of Obama (with intentionally degraded image quality to make the conspiracy more legit), moving my cursor to close the tab at the guy's opening sentence of 'I'm currently at the forefront of the most advanced mathematics ever known to mankind', decided to stay for the lulz at the follow up, 'I can create infinite energy, end all diseases, produce unlimited food, travel anywhere in the universe, and build the ultimate artificial intelligence', cashed in my lulz at 'baffled countless scientists and mathematicians' and 'we are a vortex machine sucking things in at the top and shooting them out of the bottom', started to develop an immunity at 'imploding exploding gyroscope', and finally ragequit at 'square rooting is doubling'.

-_________-

I have to agree, he didn't say anything. He showed a picture and then said it could solve all problems. How? I would think using the symbol to prove a couple of calculus problems, and then use it to calculate gravity on the moon, and then use it to prove how fast a plant will grow in any given environment would be sufficient. I mean we know all those things and can prove them, so if it actually worked we would be able to know. He said it could be solve everything, so why not?

Originally Posted by Xei

and finally ragequit at 'square rooting is doubling'.

That's odd, because out of all the things he said this actually makes the most sense. Square root is a multivalued function that takes one input and returns 2 outputs. Not "doubling" anything, but not the most outrageous thing he said.

Squaring certainly isn't though.

...unless you square 2.

Originally Posted by Xei

Squaring certainly isn't though.

...unless you square 2.

Cool story bro

Yours was cooler bro.

(It wasn't cooler).

"Although many people are applying aspects of the Rodin Solution, on the basis of private consultations and a Rodin monograph published 20 years ago, Marko Rodin has never explained key concepts such as the phasing and energization of the Rodin Coil. Although there has been a virtual stampede to get at this work, Rodin has remained silent or uncooperative, preferring to continue his work and research in isolation. He is now ready to reveal publicly the true power and scope of the Rodin Solution."

Right, the only thing I've seen him reveal so far is that he likes to find patterns in numbers and apply that pattern to grant, overarching concepts such as the fingerprint of the god, instead of actually presenting any real, strong mathematics or science to back anything. I don't have a broad understanding of physics or mathematics, but from what I can tell, if you take out most of the fluff of what he is saying, it's just "I found a cool pattern with numbers, I think the mechanics of the universe are based on it because I found it."


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...argate/SG1.jpg

That's a link to the first diagram explaining his Stargate idea. It doesn't get more coherent as it goes along.

I'll post one more, because it's my favorite.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...rgate/SG12.jpg

The more I read, the more this reminds me of Dr. Bronner.

Did anyone else catch he claims to have a unified field theory? That in itself is a pretty extraordinary claim. So, all of physics brightest minds have been seeking this for years, this one guy figures it out and no one notices?
Also, it seems he is blurring math and symbolism. To say the infinity symbol represents our universe isn't math - infinity has a specific meaning just like any other number or symbol.

Originally Posted by Xei

finally ragequit at 'square rooting is doubling'.

Right, he is talking about about exponential growth, not 'doubling'. Not an outrageous 'claim', but it makes me wonder if he actually understands mathematics.

He also said "nothing in nature moves in a straight line", then that the god particle penetrates "linearly". I'm no quantum physicist, but I'm pretty sure gravitons and dark energy aren't the same thing.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

I noticed the claim about finding a UFT, as well. That was one of the many nope points.

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

He also said "nothing in nature moves in a straight line", then that the god particle penetrates "linearly". I'm no quantum physicist, but I'm pretty sure gravitons and dark energy aren't the same thing.

The "God Particle" is the higgs, not the graviton. We know nothing about the graviton other than that we expect it to have spin 2.

Also, everything moves in a straight line unless there's some force acting on it. Gravity doesn't count as a force for that statement because gravity is just objects moving in straight lines through curved space. That's right, the moon moves in a straight line around the earth.

Although it's important to note that the line is straight in space-time. Otherwise it'd get a bit confusing why faster things (like light) curve less and don't get trapped in orbit like the planets, despite passing through the same place in the same gravitational field.

It still makes no sense at all to me how gravity is just the result of the curvature of space, and yet it's also hypothesised that it can be explained by a virtual particle. That's like... space curvature - particle duality. Too much for me.

Good point about spacetime being critical for that statement to be correct.

Originally Posted by Xei

Looks like a strong case of narcissistic personality disorder. It was entirely nonsense and the telling sign (aside from the claims about his obtaining God-like mastery of reality) is that he makes absolutely no attempt to explain himself. It's doublethink; he knows he hasn't really discovered the secrets of the universe. Opening himself up to criticism would jeopardise his position as the most important person in history, and is thus impossible. By intentionally making the nonsense impenetrable he gets to avoid any analysis and tell himself that this was the failure of others to understand his genius rather than his failure to communicate anything of substance.

You could post this in Inner Sanctum though, where they have a fully consistent and logical picture of reality, inaccessible to our insane minds, and would completely understand everything the guy said.

Just like Nicholas Newport...

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The "God Particle" is the higgs, not the graviton. We know nothing about the graviton other than that we expect it to have spin 2.

Also, everything moves in a straight line unless there's some force acting on it. Gravity doesn't count as a force for that statement because gravity is just objects moving in straight lines through curved space. That's right, the moon moves in a straight line around the earth.

I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in his statements - that he said nothing moves in a straight line, then that the god particle does.

The second sentence was in reference to his statement that the graviton and dark energy are all the same thing.

I wasn't claiming that the graviton is the god particle.

Oh yeah. That makes sense now.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Stopped listening at "Numbers ARE reality."

I think you always do that.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The "God Particle" is the higgs, not the graviton. We know nothing about the graviton other than that we expect it to have spin 2.

Also, everything moves in a straight line unless there's some force acting on it. Gravity doesn't count as a force for that statement because gravity is just objects moving in straight lines through curved space. That's right, the moon moves in a straight line around the earth.

Originally Posted by Xei

Although it's important to note that the line is straight in space-time. Otherwise it'd get a bit confusing why faster things (like light) curve less and don't get trapped in orbit like the planets, despite passing through the same place in the same gravitational field.

It still makes no sense at all to me how gravity is just the result of the curvature of space, and yet it's also hypothesised that it can be explained by a virtual particle. That's like... space curvature - particle duality. Too much for me.

Hold on.... wtf? Can either of you explain this more?

How can everything move in a straight line?

Originally Posted by tommo

Hold on.... wtf? Can either of you explain this more?

How can everything move in a straight line?

Not everything, just everything in free fall.

Originally Posted by tommo

Hold on.... wtf? Can either of you explain this more?

How can everything move in a straight line?

A disclaimer that this is just me extrapolating from what I know about geometry and what I know from popsci... I don't intend to study general relativity properly, you'd better ask Phil.

But it's not totally surprising once you realise that it's a straight line in space-time, not space. If you think about an object in classical physics moving at a fixed velocity, and its graph of distance (from some point) against time, it's straight. As it's moving at fixed velocity, we're talking about an object with no force applied to it, by Newton's first law. But if you do apply a constant force, the object accelerates and you get a curved path in space-time. However, in the same way that Galileo and Newton had realised that physics is the same whether you are still or moving at a constant velocity (so, if you're making a straight line in space-time), and hence the notion of a special fixed frame of reference which objects decelerate to was incorrect, Einstein realised that physics is the same whether you are standing on Earth, floating in space, or in free fall under gravity; that is to say, objects falling due to gravity, like those under no force with constant velocity, are also making straight lines in space-time. So gravity isn't a 'force' per se, it's just that mass changes the properties (curvature) of surrounding space. Objects continue moving 'unaffected' in straight lines in space-time, but the curvature of the space-time means they are accelerating towards the mass and so it looks like there's a force.

A question for PS is why this doesn't work for other forces.

I have no idea why it doesn't work for other forces.

There was an attempt to apply the same principle to EM, requiring 5 dimensions of space with the fifth one curled up very tightly but it wasn't stable and the fifth dimension kept getting too big. I haven't looked at it formally though. This was the beginning of the whole "curled up dimensions" thing.