0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Here is an immutable scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion, it was thoroughly illustrated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively. "Unfortunately, it doesn't load.
I looked at that document briefly. It's interesting mathematics, but I didn't really go into any depth. But interesting mathematics doesn't mean its an interesting physical theory.
In my read through, he didn't seem to make any general predictions with this theory, just a geometrical description of a particular kind of orbit. I don't see how it's different than describing the same orbits using theories of gravity.
Again, it seems the case here is that you're confusing effect with cause. Vortices arise because of other physical laws--
Excuse me, the quantitative predictions for planetary motion with this vortex theory technically supercedes the quantitative predictions by Kepler's model of planetary motion that was also geometry based. Are you implying the quantitative predictions of Kepler's model of planetary motion are not scientific predictions?You had asked for a scientific prediction based on the hypothesis of vortex theory, so this is one. Its up to you if you want to make any appraisal or deliberate on the details, no one claimed that using theories of gravity would therefore not describe the same orbital elements.
Can you elaborate on the physical laws you mentioned that causes vortices to arise?
p.s. New "theory" are free for open discussion of science base topic in this New Theory section right?
Any extensive exposition of hypothetical conceptualisation married with intrinsically novel interpretations of independently observed and validated phenomenological experiences surely merits an intensive, self reflective, hierarchical analysis and consequent synthesis of the foregoing naturalistic events. Further, if this ad hoc yet ultimately systematic elucidation of process and precept is conducted via the dialectic while preserving the methodologically natural a priori assumptions, then we may rightly anticipate a dénouement of unmodulated scope with cortical implications. Appraising the proffered paradigm shifting, convention breaching, fractally engaged neoclassical approach to the immutable integration of pan-phenomena, ipso facto universal, into a cohesive conceptual entity without invoking inchoate verbiage and dissonant exploratory tendrils, leads me to this incontrovertible culmination:Exposition, analysis, synthesis and resolution, whether dialectically or pedagogically inclined, infer analogous identification of UVS with spherically expressed, macrobiotic composites, articulated as multi-layered organic constructs teleologically destined to entrain seminal manifestations.I hope this proves helpful to your ongoing efforts.
Quote from: Vincent on 21/09/2010 07:49:07Excuse me, the quantitative predictions for planetary motion with this vortex theory technically supercedes the quantitative predictions by Kepler's model of planetary motion that was also geometry based. Are you implying the quantitative predictions of Kepler's model of planetary motion are not scientific predictions?You had asked for a scientific prediction based on the hypothesis of vortex theory, so this is one. Its up to you if you want to make any appraisal or deliberate on the details, no one claimed that using theories of gravity would therefore not describe the same orbital elements. My issue is that the theory in that chapter doesn't offer predictions that I can see. I could have missed it. Can you point out where it compares the predictions of the vortex model to Newtonian gravity? (In terms of calculations, not just claims in words.)
QuoteCan you elaborate on the physical laws you mentioned that causes vortices to arise?They seem to appear in most theories that have conservation laws. For sure, I know they're studied in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics as well as optics and quantum mechanics. However, they arise as a property of "stuff" that's flowing and that also satisfies certain rules for conservation.
Quotep.s. New "theory" are free for open discussion of science base topic in this New Theory section right? Yes, so long as it is has some scientific merit.
Pure evangelism of new theories without regard for scientific merit is frowned upon.
I thought I had made it quite clear that this scientific prediction based on the hypothesis of vortex theory does not compare with Newtonian gravity? This could be why you can't find it.
Quote from: Vincent on 21/09/2010 17:40:46I thought I had made it quite clear that this scientific prediction based on the hypothesis of vortex theory does not compare with Newtonian gravity? This could be why you can't find it.So vortex theory doesn't make predictions and can't be compared with current theories? Just saying it's better than Newton's or Einstein's theories isn't a scientific way of comparing them. Showing how they agree or disagree in their predictions is a scientific comparison.
. . . you simply cannot compare the scientific prediction expressed in vector equation with the scientific predictions expressed in geometry.
Quote from: Vincent on 23/09/2010 09:50:24. . . you simply cannot compare the scientific prediction expressed in vector equation with the scientific predictions expressed in geometry.This claim isn't true.
Whether you model nature with geometry or with scalar, vector or tensor equations or any other model, you have to be able to make predictions about nature.
If two theories make predictions about the same thing, then you can compare them.
Scientific theories need to be testable and make predictions in order to be science. In all the posts here on vortex theory, I've seen a lot of pictures of vortices and words about vortices, and even (in the chapter you linked) some equations about vortices, but I don't see any way this theory can make predictions that can be tested. If this theory is science, where are the predictions?
Vincent - before asking the forum to read through the many pages you have provided, would you answer one simple question (admittedly in two parts) that will allow progress? Does UVS explain any observable and measureable phenomena that are currently unexplainable; and where does UVS predict answers that are not in alignment with current (ie non-UVS) theories? There are people on this forum (and I dont include myself) with a profound knowledge of physics - they will be capable of understanding your theories; but you need to provide a reason to devote time and in my opinion that reason is within the answer to the question I posed above.
" the causaility of jet stream has been a mystery in the mainstream of meterology. "Nope, it's down to Coriolis forces and heat from the Sun; perfectly well explained.
The foundation for UVS could be generalized with the following paragraphs:In epistemology through analysing with the UVS model by solving cognitive paradoxes, it critically evaluates the foundation of knowledge for the established putative theories of mainstreams that could be explaining the empirically observed natural phenomena with its foundational crisis. A wrong theory could paradoxically work and UVS could address the paradox.
With qualitative evaluation for the causalities of the observed natural phenomena, it collectively elaborates on how the entire physical universe works in unison at all levels from macrocosms to microcosms as a single system in the UVS worldview.
The physics of natural science should be the qualitative study of natural phenomena as the primarily discipline and then its quantitative study follows as the secondary discipline, for without the first, it cannot be certain that its quantitatively validated proofs are true.
Quote from: Vincent on 26/09/2010 16:25:10The physics of natural science should be the qualitative study of natural phenomena as the primarily discipline and then its quantitative study follows as the secondary discipline, for without the first, it cannot be certain that its quantitatively validated proofs are true.NO. It has got to be both together; otherwise enormous and complicated theorems can be posited with no hint of connexion to reality which are purely descriptive, or conversely mathematically consistent worlds can be created with laws with no basis in datum universe.physics doesn't really deal with "validated proofs" that are true - it deals with theories which are consistent with experimental evidence, that are mathematically coherent, and have a predictive power. a theory needs everything - from the overall picture, through the course grain, to the finest detail; of course nothing comes to light with all boxes ticked, but the potential must be there. From your descriptions I don't see this in UVS
Quote from: Vincent on 26/09/2010 16:25:10With qualitative evaluation for the causalities of the observed natural phenomena, it collectively elaborates on how the entire physical universe works in unison at all levels from macrocosms to microcosms as a single system in the UVS worldview.OK, its a theory of everything; but one without any quantitative predictive power
Quote from: Vincent on 26/09/2010 16:25:10The foundation for UVS could be generalized with the following paragraphs:In epistemology through analysing with the UVS model by solving cognitive paradoxes, it critically evaluates the foundation of knowledge for the established putative theories of mainstreams that could be explaining the empirically observed natural phenomena with its foundational crisis. A wrong theory could paradoxically work and UVS could address the paradox.Sorry Vincent - but I can make no sense of this paragraph whatsoever.
Does this "I have overlooked to clarify it with you that this may not be considered as a theory in the context of modern physics." mean that UVS isn't a scientific theory?
If so why is it on a science website?