Talk:Vortex-based math

What the hell is this crap? Spud (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More of a comment than an article, isn't it? Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 15:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the great service this article provides. Just this morning, I was puzzling over whether Vortex based math was indeed one of the greatest scientific revelations of all time, like all the kids at school say.  So I came to Rational Wiki and discovered, rather, that "the math that describes a vortex is pretty neat and potentially useful for this or that."
 * Would you rather that I continued in my confusion? There's real value in this short article! Phiwum (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any one of you could have summarily deleted this delightful bit of fluff.
 * Vortex Math Returns!
 * At the age of fifteen Marko Rodin projected his mind as far as he could across the universe and asked the question, "What is the secret behind intelligence?" Due to his gift of intense focus or because it was time for him to know the answer, his stomach muscles turned to iron and as he was literally lifted forward he answered out loud, "I understand."
 * One may assume that this image is an enneagram-based representation of Morko Rodin's G-spot. Try to unsee that, if you can
 * There is a RW article in there somewhere, but it has not made its way here yet. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've sort of tried to start to fix it. I have to say I haven't laughed so much since I found Time Cube. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better, even as a work-in-progress. Thanks! Phiwum (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it's better now. I can't claim to understand it but that's obviously my problem. Spud (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I expanded quite a bit and added some snark. I thought it was funny, anyway. Here's an article I wouldn't be embarrassed to show to my parents. 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed writing about something other than Gamergate, for a change. Math really is fun, even bad math!  :)   11:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this maths going down the (bath) plughole or coming up it? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It FLOWS both ways simultaneously - don't throw the bathwater! 122.59.255.207 (talk)(WHAT baby?!)

Others have got their first - eg - and there are 'many, many' other such. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda
This Rational Wiki is irrational Wiki. Ignorant information is being persisted. What is Vortex Math? Where is the actual math and an example of the math. Rational Wiki is also wrongly attributing Vortex Math to Marko Rodin and his Coil. When the subject is looked into, there are coils and examples of vortex math going back to the eighties. Suppressing accurate information does nothing for someone who has an interest to understand what Vortex math is really about. &mdash; Unsigned, by: TimeSpaceSphere / talk / contribs

Very bad article
I'm afraid this article is snarky adolescent fluff like most of RationalWiki. Why don't you tiresome jerks do your homework or shut up? Regardless of Rodin's metaphysical preoccupations (which others have shared eg: Pythagoras), the material he introduced is mathematically very rich and is not accounted for in mainstream academic mathematics, which comes closest to it in Scheme theory. Like other members of the so-called "Sceptics" community, RationalWiki seems to be a bunch of half-educated, self-appointed "defenders of truth" with a thesaurus full of insults at their hand, precious little actual content, and a mysteriously fanatical zeal to marginalise certain things. Hmmmmm.....
 * You would fit very nicely in our team of editors. 19:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Regardless of Rodin's metaphysical preoccupations (which others have shared eg: Pythagoras)" Appeal to authority, Galileo gambit, possible appeal to fame. "the material he introduced is mathematically very rich and is not accounted for in mainstream academic mathematics" Hmm... I wonder why those peer reviewed and generally rigorious journals didn't accept this hypothesis... Hmm... Maybe it's wrong? 20:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)