Paul Krugman has taken to calling certain kinds of economic ideas *zombie economics*, because no matter how many times they’re shown to be false, they just keep coming back from the dead. I certainly don’t have stature that compares in any way to Krugmant, but I’m still going to use his terminology for some bad math. There are some crackpot ideas that you just can’t kill.

For example, vortex math. I wrote about vortex math for the first time in 2012, again in early 2013, and again in late 2013. But like a zombie in a bad movie, it’s fans won’t let it stay dead. There must have been a discussion on some vortex-math fan forum recently, because over the last month, I’ve been getting comments on the old posts, and emails taking me to task for supposedly being unfair, closed-minded, ignorant, and generally a very nasty person.

Before I look at any of their criticisms, let’s start with a quick refresher. What is vortex math?

We’re going to create a pattern of single-digit numbers using multiples of 2. Take the number 1. Multiply it by 2, and you get 2. Multiple it by 2, and you get 4. Again, you get 8. Again, and you get 16. 16 is two digits, but we only want one-digit numbers, so we add them together, getting 7. Double, you get 14, so add the digits, and you get 5. Double, you get 10, add the digits, and you get 1. So you’ve got a repeating sequence: 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, …

Take the numbers 1 through 9, and put them at equal distances around the perimeter of a circle. Draw an arrow from a number to its single-digit double. You end up with something that looks kinda-sorta like the infinity symbol. You can also fit those numbers onto the surface of a torus.

That’s really all there is to vortex math. This guy named Marco Rodin discovered that there’s a repeating pattern, and if you draw it on a circle, it looks kinda-like the infinity symbol, and that there must be something incredibly profound and important about it. Launching from there, he came up with numerous claims about what that means. According to vortex math, there’s something deeply significant about that pattern:

- If you make metallic windings on a toroidal surface according to that pattern and use it as a generator, it will generate free energy.
- Take that same coil, and run a current through it, and you have a perfect, reactionless space drive (called “the flux thruster atom pulsar electrical ventury space time implosion field generator coil”).
- If you use those numbers as a pattern in a medical device, it will cure cancer, as well as every other disease.
- If you use that numerical pattern, you can devise better compression algorithms that can compress
*any*string of bits. - and so on…

Essentially, according to vortex math, that repeated pattern of numbers defines a “vortex”, which is the deepest structure in the universe, and it’s the key to understanding all of math, all of physics, all of metaphysics, all of medicine. It’s *the* fundamental pattern of everything, and by understanding it, you can do absolutely *anything*.

As a math geek, the problem with stuff like vortex math is that it’s difficult to refute mathematically, because even though Rodin calls it math, there’s really no math to it. There’s a pattern, and therefore magic! Beyond the observation that there’s a pattern, there’s nothing but claims of things that *must* be true because there’s a pattern, without any actual mathematical argument.

Let me show you an example, from one of Rodin’s followers, named Randy Powell.

I call my discovery the ABHA Torus. It is now the full completion of how to engineer Marko Rodin’s Vortex Based Mathematics. The ABHA Torus as I have discovered it is the true and perfect Torus and it has the ability to reveal in 3-D space any and all mathematical/geometric relationships possible allowing it to essentially accomplish any desired functional application in the world of technology. This is because the ABHA Torus provides us a mathematical framework where the true secrets of numbers (qualitative relationships based on angle and ratio) are revealed in fullness.

This is why I believe that the ABHA Torus as I have calculated is the most powerful mathematical tool in existence because it presents proof that numbers are not just flat imaginary things. To the contrary, numbers are stationary vector interstices that are real and exhibiting at all times spatial, temporal, and volumetric qualities. Being stationary means that they are fixed constants. In the ABHA Torus the numbers never move but the functions move through the numbers modeling vibration and the underlying fractal circuitry that natures uses to harness living energy.

The ABHA Torus as revealed by the Rodin/Powell solution displays a perfectly symmetrical spin array of numbers (revealing even prime number symmetry), a feat that has baffled countless scientists and mathematicians throughout the ages. It even uncovers the secret of bilateral symmetry as actually being the result of a diagonal motion along the surface and through the internal volume of the torus in an expanding and contracting polarized logarithmic spiral diamond grain reticulation pattern produced by the interplay of a previously unobserved Positive Polarity Energetic Emanation (so-called ‘dark’ or ‘zero-point’ energy) and a resulting Negative Polarity Back Draft Counter Space (gravity).

If experimentally proven correct such a model would for example replace the standard approach to toroidal coils used in energy production today by precisely defining all the proportional and angular relationships existent in a moving system and revealing not only the true pathway that all accelerated motion seeks (be it an electron around the nucleus of an atom or water flowing down a drain) but in addition revealing this heretofore unobserved, undefined point energetic source underlying all space-time, motion, and vibration.

Lots of impressive sounding words, strung together in profound sounding ways, but what does it mean? Sure, gravity is a “back draft” of an unobserved “positive polarity energetic emanatation”, and therefore we’ve unified dark energy and gravity, and unified all of the forces of our universe. That sounds terrific, except that it doesn’t mean anything! How can you test that? What evidence would be consistent with it? What evidence would be *inconsistent* with it? No one can answer those questions, because none of it means anything.

As I’ve said lots of times before: there’s a reason for the formal framework of mathematics. There’s a reason for the painful process of mathematical proof. There’s a reason why mathematicians and scientists have devised an elaborate language and notation for expressing mathematical ideas. And that reason is because it’s easy to string together words in profound sounding ways. It’s easy to string together reasoning in ways that look like they might be compelling if you took the time to understand them. But to do actual mathematics or actual science, you need to do more that string together something that sounds good. You need to put together something that is *precise*. The point of mathematical notation and mathematical reasoning is to take complex ideas and turn them into precisely defined, unambiguous structures that have the same meaning to everyone who looks at them.

“positive polarity energetic emanation” is a bunch of gobbledegook wordage that doesn’t mean anything to anyone. I can’t refute the claim that gravity is a back-draft negative polarity energetic reaction to dark energy. I can’t support that claim, either. I can’t do much of anything with it, because Randy Powell hasn’t said anything meaningful. It’s vague and undefined in ways that make it impossible to reason about in any way.

And that’s the way that things go throughout all of vortex math. There’s this cute pattern, and it *must* mean something! Therefore… endless streams of words, without any actual mathematical, physical, or scientific argument.

There’s so much wrong with vortex math, but it all comes down to the fact that it takes some arbitrary artifacts of human culture, and assigns them deep, profound meaning for no reason.

There’s this pattern in the doubling of numbers and reducing them to one digit. Why multiple by two? Because we like it, and it produces a pretty pattern. Why not use 3? Well, because in base-10, it won’t produce a good pattern: [1, 3, 9, 9, 9, 9, ….] But we can pick another number like 7: [1, 7, 5, 8, 2, 5, 8, 2, 5, ….], and get a perfectly good series: why is that series less compelling than [1, 4, 8, 7, 2, 5]?

There’s nothing magical about base-10. We can do the same thing in base-8: [1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 4…] How about base-12, which was used for a lot of stuff in Egypt? [1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 10, 9, 7, 3, 6, 1] – that gives us a longer pattern! What makes base-10 special? Why does the base-10 pattern mean something that other bases, or other numerical representations, don’t? The vortex math folks can’t answer that. *(Note: I made an arithmetic error in the initial version of the base-12 sequence above. It was pointed out in comments by David Wallace. Thanks!)*

If we plot the numbers on a circle, we get something that looks kind-of like an infinity symbol! What does that mean? Why should the infinity symbal (which was invented in the 17th century, and chosen because it looked sort of like a number, and sort-of like the last letter of the greek alphabet) have any intrinsic meaning to the universe?

It’s giving profound meaning to arbitrary things, for unsupported reasons.

So what’s in the recent flood of criticism from the vortex math guys?

Well, there’s a lot of “You’re mean, so you’re wrong.” And there’s a lot of “Why don’t you prove that they’re wrong instead of making fun of them?”. And last but not least, there’s a lot of “Yeah, well, the fibonacci series is just a pattern of numbers too, but it’s really important”.

On the first: Yeah, fine, I’m mean. But I get pretty pissed at seeing people get screwed over by charlatans. The vortex math guys use this stuff to take money from “investors” based on their claims about producing limitless free energy, UFO space drives, and cancer cures. This isn’t abstract: this kind of nonsense hurts people. They people who are pushing these scams *deserve* to be mocked, without mercy. They don’t deserve kindness or respect, and they’re not going to get it from me.

I’d love to be proved wrong on this. One of my daughter’s friends is currently dying of cancer. I’d give up nearly anything to be able to stop her, and other children like her, from dying an awful death. If the vortex math folks could do anything for this poor kid, I would gladly grovel and humiliate myself at their feet. I would dedicate the rest of my life to nothing but helping them in their work.

But the fact is, when they talk about the miraculous things vortex math can do? At best, they’re delusional; more likely, they’re just lying. There is no cure for cancer in [1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, 1].

As for the Fibonacci series: well. It’s an interesting pattern. It does appear to show up in some interesting places in nature. But there are two really important differences.

- The Fibonacci series shows up in every numeric notation, in every number base, no matter how you do numbers.
- It
*does*show up in nature. This is key: there’s more to it than just words and vague assertions. You can*really*find fragments of the Fibonacci series in nature. By doing a careful mathematical analysis, you can find the Fibonacci series in numerous places in mathematics, such as the solutions to a range of interesting dynamic optimization problems. When you find a way of observing the vortex math pattern in nature, or a way of producing actual numeric solutions for real problems, in a way that anyone can reproduce, I’ll happily give it another look. - The Fibonacci series does appear in nature – but it’s also been used by numerous crackpots to make ridiculous assertions about how the world must work!

David WallaceYour base 12 sequence is wrong – it should be 1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 10, 9, 7, 3, 6, 1, which is even longer than the one you wrote (18 base 10 = 16 base 12, which leads to 7 when you add the digits).

markccPost authorYou’re right. Thanks for the catch.

TaylorHi mark I read your article very carefully and I thought it was a very realistic and well founded skeptical criticism and questioning of the validity of vortex math.

Im very interested to have a discussion about vortex math if you are receptive to that

And if what your saying is true about what the mainstream understanding and explanation of vortex math and what’s known about it so far I would have to agree that there is no proof that it is meaning full that being said I think I might have discovered the proof myself

Alfonzo MataYou’re right it is all crackpot science. So while we wait on someone else to save us with their own hard work. Maybe we should work on the crisis at hand a little more in ourselves and within our local communities. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. You’re clearly not aware of the diminishing moral dimension because you’re expecting someone to make a sacrifice for a pessimistic society or just you’re friend. If it’s all conspiracy then why is our planet going to waste and the authorities are becoming creepier by the day. All of the time,money, and relentless effort for what? To make robots solve our problems? We gotta just stop being ignorant to our potential and equity of our existence. Forget biased opinions of the mainstream. Why is it so important to keep lying to the human race in general? We have way more on our plate than just mathematical equations bud.

Jamie MoffatWell, I for one have to be thankful for the vortex mathematicians, for if not for them I would not be here!

Really pleased to have stumbled across your site; have poked through a few articles and enjoyed your perspective. Cheers!

MarkoHi Mark, I have enjoyed your blog many years. I seldom have much to comment to your technical posts, but I reacted on your daughters friends cancer and felt that I may possess some info that might at least increase the odds of you being able to help them stop from dying an awful death. Have a look at the below 30 min video on treating cancer metabolically. All the best. https://youtu.be/9WFxjO3OHy0

markccPost authorThat kid is under the care of people who specialize in her particular cancer. I’m not going to go to her parents and tell them to go look at this video on the internet, because the guy who posted it to youtube knows more than the best cancer specialist in North America.

David AndresenI am surprised that you claim to know a great deal. I have found that I know very little but in my 70+ years on this earth I have discovered that I can do anything I focus my mind on and all human beings can too. Are you familiar with gematria?

David AndresenBy the way your mention of fools in your blog heading is not for you to decide. All is information and becomes knowledge when one verifies it to be true. Hard work.

“There are only two ways to be fooled, to believe what is not true and to refuse to believe what is true.” ~Søren Kierkegaard

To strengthen ones intelligence suspend your belief in what you believe to be true. Live a little in uncertainty. Belief can be true but not necessarily.

James ClennettI agree with the blog and pretty much the comments here also. It is important to apply critical thinking, aka cynicism, aka objective reasoning on such things, because it is all too easy to obtain a delusional perception when going with want/desire.

That said, the sword has two sides, and one can deny themselves opportunity of discovery if closed minded with convention.

I tend to lean towards this being a mathematical parlour trick, with some interesting qualities, which, if you strip away the spiritual energy emanation mysticism, could well lead to some useful, demonstrable discoveries. But, alas it seems, we are not there with this one yet.

To add something that actually has a bit more substance, i don’t understand why this concept is always associated with some religious hocus pocus. By the way, I am not anti-religion, far from it. My personal opinion is very much in favour of there being more behind our reality than we perceive. However, in this case, i do not understand why the people teaching this can be so detailed about the pattern, explaining it so that the average child would understand, but then make loose statements tying parts of it to mystical elements, without one iota of satisfactory explanation, and expect the same level of continued credibility.

EarthzapHi marko,

We call reality what happens in the realms of what we know is possible. The truth is that we know very little, so we don’t even know reality.

What we learn widens our perspective of the known, bringing us one step closer to reality.

SamYou say “But we can pick another number like 7: [1, 7, 5, 8, 2, 5, 8, 2, 5, ….], ”

Take 1, Multiple1 by 7 = 7

7 * 7 = 49 = 4

4 * 7 = 10 = 1

so sequence is (1, 7, 4).

Are you confused or am I?

StuartHi mate,

Just a quick pointer into something that may interest you. Now, not for a second do I think all that free energy, thrust flux bollocks has any empirical evidence whatsoever. However, there is a strange underlying correlation to Vortex Math and the Fibonacci sequence that, from my perspective, I haven’t yet been able to poke holes in. Have a look if you have time and please let me know what you think. Please disregard the fact it’s a comment on Graham Hancock’s website, the guy commenting has taken the time to put this pattern together and I’m no mathematician but to me it looks like it fits. There’s no meaning to it apart from yet another pattern, but it seems to fit in with a pattern we do see in nature – the Fibonacci sequence – http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,336811,336811

RibozymeSo as far as I see, that guy sums the digits of the Fibonacci numbers. Do you know how you can test divisibility by 9 by checking if the digit sum is divisible by 9 (“casting out 9s”)? Similarly, that pattern is just the Fibonacci numbers modulo 9. The period of 24 is called Pisano period https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisano_period.

When you start with 3, you get 3*1, 3*1, 3*2, 3*3, 3*5, 3*8, … so you get three times the Fibonacci sequence. Because 9 is a multiple of 3, the period reduces from 24 to 8.

All of the patterns in that comment follow from this “Fibonacci modulo 9” and taking the multiples (2*sequence, 3*sequence, …, until 9*sequence is magically always divisible by 9).

About the curvy pattern at the end… what does he do there? And why do the 216 numbers fit in when there are clearly more and smaller holes visible?