The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
5 votes

Vortex Math - you have got to see this.

My Tesla Trip landed me at the doorstep of Vortex Math.

Anyone who saw "Thrive" will appreciate that connection - the torus is indeed worth studying. Marko Rodin developed this course, but he is too smart to talk to folks like me. He has a student, Randy Powell, who makes it very understandable. I have been working my way through these videos, but yesterday a comment caught my eye... WOW - the "Vortex math" diagram will be on screen when you click the link. I did not even notice as I was trying to learn math, but someone in the comments did. Ever seen that symbol before?

Now DO NOT dismiss this thread over me pointing out the symbol. That is a fascinating coincidence, but this thread is about what they are teaching. It is "the new math" we all heard about but never learned and we really deserve to know.

Combine this with "The Electric Universe" and we are not in Kansas any more, Toto. A new level of consciousness is right there - no hoodoo voodoo, no prayer and fasting, just a willingness to learn.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The correct starting point for counting

is "1." We count with "natural numbers," another term for which is, actually, "counting numbers." These consist of the set of positive integers {1, 2, 3,...}. Possibly they are called "natural" numbers because for eons we've been using something organic, our fingers, to count on. And you'd never be counting "zero" items or whatever. If there were zero items, there would be nothing there for you to count.

In fact, zero wasn't used as a number until fairly recently in the scheme of things: "The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol for separation is attributed to India, where, by the 9th century AD, practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division."

Now, we don't have nine fingers, but ten. But as the guy pointed out (it's integral (no pun intended) to the way he is looking at numbers here), the 10 is comprised of 1+0=1. Maybe we don't think of it this way, but zero is used in two ways, as a place holder and as a number itself (to mean "nothing"). In the number 10 (vs., say, 100 or 1), the zero is used to position the 1 to reflect its value, i.e., to differentiate 1 group of ten from 1 group of a hundred or 1 one).

I'm pointing out that counting numbers begin with "1" so you don't write off the guy on that basis alone.

I, too, am fascinated by pi. Also by Archimedes (287-212 B.C.), who must have had the patience of a saint! "By inscribing and circumscribing a 96-sided regular polygon in and about a circle he computed that pi is between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71." (Source: The Historical Roots of Elementary Mathematics, by Lucas N.H.Bun, Phillip S. Jones, and Jack D. Bedient)

Now I could imagine myself drawing a square both inside and outside of a circle with some precision. But here's a chart of regular polygons (regular polygons being multi-sided figures with equal sides and angles):

A dodecagon, which is only a 12-sided figure, is already beginning to look circular, what I have to imagine is difficult to draw with just a straightedge and compass to get those 12 sides and angles all the same. Imagine Archimedes drawing a 92-sided figure with all the sides and angles being equal!

So based on the areas of his "little" inscribed dodecagon and "big" circumscribed dodecagon, and knowing that the area of the circle would be between those two values, Archimedes was able to figure out that (here, going out to just five places) the value of pi (3.14159) was between 3 1/7 (or 3.14286) and 3 10/71 (or 3.14085).

Well, there's a lot about mathematics that fascinates me.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I'll concede your point on starting to count at one

I was trying to point out the importance of zero, but I didn't do it very well. I think that saying 10 is comprised of 1 + 0 = 1 is a bit of a stretch numerically. The concept of 10 is 1*10^1 + 0*10^0. That only works using base 10. I just tried the same exercise (with the number circle and doubling starting at 1) in base 8 and base 12, and the results don't look nearly as pretty. Just for fun, I decided to try base 20, since the Mayans used base 20. The start of the pattern doesn't look too good, but the pattern will be very complex and I don't have time to complete it right now, so I'll reserve judgement on that one. The problem is that any number base we impose is essentially an artificial organizational mechanism that we (necessarily) impose on numeric concepts. The concepts themselves are independent of how we organize numbers. That's why I am fascinated by pi and other natural numbers like it. Their meaning goes beyond the numerical systems we impose.

I agree that the *concepts* of pi

and other relationships are fascinating, superseding any artificially-imposed number systems. And I gave some thought and agree, to a certain extent, with Bill Gillingham's comment below: "It reveals a pattern because it is built on a pattern." Nonetheless, I'm intrigued. I'm only up to Part 3, interested to see where this is going. I'm intrigued for two reasons. First, it's not so much the relationships among the numbers themselves (the patterns on that circle, BG's point); rather, I'm intrigued with the possible relationships to other phenomena, i.e., natural phenomena. Second, I do believe there is "something bigger than Phil!" Sorry, that's a line from the Carl Reiner/Mel Brooks bit on the 20,000 Year Old Man (what he said after lightning struck Phil, the god they'd been worshiping). The point is, I do believe there are certain universal principles, keys to unlocking the working of things, that are yet to be discovered--- or perhaps better said (at least in part), re-discovered. I have a friend who is doing some amazing work with energy and sound (which the ancient Egyptians, for one, knew a lot about, although they're not talking), not in the realm of physics, per se, but re healing. And so I'm willing to keep an open mind. P.S. That said, I'm still interested to know if you turn up any patterns doing the exercise with other base systems. P.P.S. Off topic except that this dialogue has reminded me of it, I love the film Zero Effect, about a quirky detective Daryl *Zero* (Bill Pullman) and his sidekick (Ben Stiller) investigating a case of blackmail and *missing keys*. :)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I have no problem with looking for patterns

One of the reasons I am hung up on the concept of zero is that in calculus there are similarities in the behavior of zero and infinity. I believe that there is a design to the universe, and I have looked for patterns in strange places. It's just that this particular system, claiming to have unlocked the secrets of the universe and the mathematical definition of God (or some such), just isn't what it claims (although one of the things I've learned is that the surer I am of something, the more likely I am to be wrong....)

I'll see what I can do in other bases, though between work and kids I have far less time on my hands than I used to, so it may take a while.

One exercise that got me hooked quite a number of years ago was this:

Take a deck of playing cards and shuffle it perfectly. How many times do you have to shuffle it to get the deck back to its original configuration? Try to find an equation for the number of shuffles based on the number of cards in the deck. I thought the pattern would be simple, but I never figured it out. Of course, I was in college and I eventually lost interest as it didn't really seem to lead anywhere important (at least compared to trying to get a date - no small task for a geek like me). Of course it probably really does hold the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything.

Deck of Cards

Never know what you might find in a deck of cards! I learned that when I was little, growing up in the 50's/60's, when you'd often hear this song on the radio - well, at least on the country/Western station my father listened to.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

There is a pattern I can buy into



Fascinates me .

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Actually, he didn't.

That's what's at the "centre" of the Toroid, also know as the black hole.

Listen @ 5:57 min in:

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

In the first posted video

He specifically points to the digits 1-9 and says no one could propose another digit. I'll let the rest go, though I think you will find more interesting relationships by studying pi or e. Patterns involving artificial base 10 integers are unlikely to get you very far.

This is about a COIL.

I will go add a video to the original post. This is not mental masturbation, these are men explaining why they made their coil the way they did. Writing off everything due to one mis-speak is a bit harsh. He DOES explain zero, not fast enough to suit you apparently. So, his technology is not worthy of you....?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

It is not one mis-speak, as you say

I am a math/numbers geek. I have been looking at patterns of things for the last forty years or more. With all of that, I do not claim to know much, but I can tell when I hear someone trying to make a big deal about a quirk of base 10 numbers. As I said in another post, their pattern doesn't hold in other bases. I'm sure you could find a different pattern that would work in each base, but that is meaningless in universal terms.

Incidentally, the original post said nothing about a coil, so I was looking at it purely from a mathematical point of view. And no, he doesn't adequately explain zero. If you want to say I'm not thinking in depth about this stuff, please respond to one of my posts discussing number bases, how their pattern doesn't work in other bases (I actually tried it in base 8 and base 12), and why it would be more profitable to look at natural numbers like pi.


I was just watching the "Advanced Vortex Math" Video that your Tesla post led me to! Fascinating co-creation happening here today!

That numeric symbol looks a lot like the Masonic Seal, Volts Wagon logo, you can even see how it could be an "A" as well as a "W" - 'A&W'? I'm sure there are countless others who have been encoding these symbols in their corporate logos.

Also: *cough* 16 Days! *cough*

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

You meant: *cough!* 18 days! *cough* *hack!* *whuhhuchcch!*

You meant: *cough!* 18 days! *cough* *hack!* *whuhhuchcch!* *gasp* *gasp* ......*cchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...h...h..h.h.h..h.h.h........"

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"



"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin


He says so many non sequiturs in the first few minutes I'm quite confident in dismissing him. Any mind that messed up should keep to itself.

This is about math, not men.

It amuses me that so many of you are so proud of your closed minds on this. I am fortunate enough to seek truth where I find it, and know the only available source is broken humans. I have this crazy notion that the arrival of "The Perfect One" will most likely be when all us tiny pieces of God find our way back to Perfect Oneness, so short of that event I expect everything I learn to be through some form of broken human.
If you can tear up his math, shame me, I deserve it. I have wasted almost 2 hours now being intrigued and increasingly convinced they are on to something. Meanwhile, I am going back to watch a few more videos.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Vortex Judgment

Gosh, really late as I so rarely get any replies to anything I write here. But I wanted to let you know, fishy, how I take a first whiff of new information.

This is your video host's first salvo:

"Marco, his original claim is that he had tapped into and could model mathematically a previously unobserved invisible energy. That energy is referred to by many names and has been by many people: tachyons, monopoles, you might call it gravitons, radiant energy…. you might just call it energy."

Did you catch that? Does this opening increase your trust in the speaker? Or raise red flags?

He just said that the energy was unobserved, then said that many people have called it many names. How do "many people" call "unobserved" energy by many names. Either this host does't understand the meanings of basic words -- like unobserved, many, people -- or he's just lying. Either way, it makes him immediately circumspect. If I were serious about researching vortex math, I'd kill his little talk and try to find a cogent speaker.

We have to judge the veracity of new information, and the first hurdle is the messenger. Not all messengers are able, but if the message is valid, it should not be promulgated by a guy who isn't cognizant of the meaning of the words he uses. At the very least, you should be able to find a messenger who is.

Either way, your host is not a trustworthy guide. From that opening statement, this is clear. If there's something to vortex math, you will not get any clarity from such a mind and you need to move on to a more clearheaded host.

The mathematical market is alive and well. They'll look at even oddities and exploit them. There's no shutting out of genuine interesting thought. Trust the free market of thought among our geeks is alive and well -- my mathematics geeks husband is telling me to type these words. He says, mathematicians are too weird to fall victim to authority. Apparently, I'm listening between his diatribes, they're not even interested in authority and politics and so forth. They are, however, interested in letting people know that a guy who doesn't know what a word means, probably doesn't know what a number means.

Sorry he can't get past the semantics.

I am pretty fair at math, my husband is even better, and my son is no slouch either. We all listened to the whole series, and we are all in agreement that this was worth our time. Furthermore, there is a small tribe of mathematicians and electricians on youtube who are applying the information and making it work. I agree, the speaker is not a great communicator, but he is trying to convey a concept, and I took the time to try to understand him, and I have been richly rewarded. If your husband has an open mind, tell him to grin and bear it, and watch the entire series. If he has something specific he can debunk, I would love to hear it. Picking out a sentence he did not like in the first video and writing off the entire thing... looks like another case of "professional blindness" to me.
People have observed the effects of these unnamed fields for a long time, and chosen different things to "name" what they witnessed. I do not blame the speaker for that.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

It is typical of charlatans

... to claim that anyone who dismisses their ideas is being closed-minded. That if only these people would open their mind to the possibility such-and-such could be true, they would finally see the truth of things.

This is a fallacious position, because it denies the possibility that people have examined these ideas with a rational and open mind and subsequently dismissed them. The blind proponent assumes that anyone who dismisses the ideas, for whatever reason, had a mind which merely wasn't open enough. The implication is that they should keep trying to understand until they agree with me!

It's a commonly, and unfairly, applied tactic also used by those budding physicists on web forums who claim that relativity is bunk.

"Open minded" means to hear someone out, not make snap judgement

Everyone wants answers, but the answer better be easy, and able to be grasped in a 3 minute youtube, or people will not bother to try to understand.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I merely ask you to present YOUR facts.

You claim you HAVE examined them, please - share THAT experience. Attacking my position and calling me a charlatan is "strawman" stuff, you know better.

This guy built an electrical coil based on a new way of conceiving math, and his coil shows unusual properties. Those are facts. Your turn.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I'm not following you on the coil reference?

I watched this and didn't see anything about a coil or the energy you seem to be so excited about. He was just going through number sequences. What am I missing???

You are missing the "search" field on youtube

Please note that neither the video maker no I claim this is FREE ENERGY. They offer FREE PLANS for their IMPROVED coil.

The men made a coil. it shows unusual properties, people demanded to know how they made the coil. They tried to give a very full explanation, made that series of videos. Now everyone acts like the videos explaining the math for the coil is just some "mystics" looking for god in math. NO. These men made the coil, then tried to share with the world how they did it.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

My facts are

- Who knows the name of God? Is the name of God as determined by this system the correct name? Who can verify?

- The claim is made that this system provides the basis for the existence of tachyons. Who has observed a tachyon?

- Claims are also made that this number system describes the motive power of the universe, the spin continuum, and oscillating duality. What do any of these things mean?

- This coil has "unusual properties" and may provide free energy. Why don't those who have built them subject them to scientific analysis? Let me guess, the government wishes to suppress this technology?

The trouble with the kinds of claims you are talking about is that they are non-falsifiable. Therefore there are no "facts" I can give which can disprove them.

Stating that somewhere on earth a Tyrannosaurus Rex still exists is an example of a non-falsfiable statement. No matter how long we search and never find a T-Rex, the possibility exists that one is still out there. I can say: "We have never seen one in recorded human history", but anyone can respond "Well, you just need to have an open mind and consider that one might exist, as yet undiscovered. You're just being closed-minded and aren't presenting any facts."

They are verifiable - build a coil.

They have been through scientific tests, and they pass. Demanding I explain why they are not being developed, and then immediately dismissing the possibility that those profiting from the sales of oil and nuclear energy might suppress this as not a reasonable possibility... You're looking a bit like a dinosaur yourself.
Do you dismiss HHO, too? Because we ran a car on it for almost a year. Go ahead, explain to me how I did not because if I did, the market would be flooded with them...

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Fishy as you well know

There has always been a concerted effort to control/conceal this information. It's amusing to watch it play out even today but its way too late, its time has come. We are on the cusp of free enery.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Sounds like mystical BS to me

It describes the name of god. It's the motive power of the universe. Some people call them tachyons. The energy that drives everything. Something-or-other called the spin continuum. A representation of oscillating duality. The basis of DNA replication, cell division and nuclear reactions.

Some pretty impressive claims. Then to "prove" them, he shows some neat little properties of powers of 2 and multiples of 3 and 9. It would be funny if it didn't seem like this guy believes in every unfounded connection he's making.

Who not hear him out?

Allow yourself the few hours to watch it. I am about half way through, and there is a lot more to this than a few math tricks. He is laying a foundation to something - follow him for a few hours and if you can debunk the math, save me the time of finishing watching. I tried to watch Rodin first, he was over my head and a little off the walls, but Powell is teaching me stuff. I am not bad atmath, but language is my strong suit so I would be very interested in having insight from a gifted math person who BOTHERED TO LISTEN. I have checked the forums, they are all like you - dismiss it without investigation. That is a very high risk path toward eating crow, in my opinion.
And here is the thing - these men went seeking the highest name of God and found math - BEYOND LANGUAGE. I think they are on to something. A few hours, that is all they ask. I'm giving it to them until someone shows me the MATH of why I should not.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Um, I did.

I'm a big fan of math, and I watched most of the videos because I am interested in number tricks and patterns. However, none of what was said provided credible evidence that there is anything mystical going on.

Here's news for you: Numbers don't exist. They are an abstract tool of the human mind, nothing more. We could have easily chosen base 12, or base 16 for our number system and then none of what was said in the videos would work. Or rather, different patterns would exist in those systems of counting and those patterns would be claimed as the "name of God" or some such nonsense.

These are just interesting properties of abstract concepts. Really, I don't need to "debunk" anything this man says. He still has yet to prove that any of his number tricks definitively prove his mystical claims.

built a coil?

THEY imply mysticism. To me, things are all mysterious until understood. Oddly enough, the mysticism that led them to science is the same science that makes you shut down at the notion of mysticism. Mystics and scientists have always been around, both nibbling on different corners of existence. I think they may have chewed through most of the rug and are about to meet in the middle, myself.
All the "experts" sound like you. Nothing but patterns and a display of the intricate relationships between numbers. But these kooks think they found god, so I tuned them out.
Then there are the kids, and (perhaps my childish nature is showing) curious people like me. I have been married for over 30 years to a man who has always said "If we find God, it will be a number" because language tends to divide us, math is universal. Now, I don't mean to whig out any religious people, nor am I trying to convert any scientists, I am asking EVERYONE to put down bias, forgive these men for their bias, and listen, all the way through, before you declare it not worth the time.
I am not stupid - my math Stanine was 97th percentile and that was my weak score. There are youtubes of young men curious enough to build the coil, and they find it unusual. I admit, I do not have any electrical training or skills, but I am probably going to watch my husband build one and then I will share our experience here. The reason I ask you to debunk is to avoid putting more opinion out when what we need are facts.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.