[Bored chemist]

"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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

"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.

This is a bit strange, it works at my end on serveral PCs. Please try again, if it still does not work, click this "The fifth coming of vortices" and select chapter 13.

This link is a preview version and therefore not all pages were there. The first link would be better for it has the complete content for "The fifth coming of vortices".

BTW, this is the work of my contemporary on vortex theory, he is Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg, a mathematician, an accomplished mechanical engineer and the author of serveral books.

[JP]

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--there isn't evidence that they're somehow the cause of other physical laws.

[Ophiolite]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

Agreed. Indeed one must not be that superficial by asserting its interesting physical theory because it is interesting mathematics.
 

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.

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.

Again, it seems the case here is that you're confusing effect with cause.  Vortices arise because of other physical laws--

In the past there was not lack of wrong theory that had worked for its scientific prediction, no one was absolutely sure until it was falsified, even then the status of such validated theories before proven wrong were held as valid and not necessary true. Are you absolutely sure it was not you who are confusing effect with cause?

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?

[JP]

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.

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.)

Can 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.

 
p.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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

Thanks for your very impressive and eloquently written review for UVS.

Warm welcome to this thread Ophiolite and thanks for exploring the UVS worldview by appraising the proffered paradigm shifting. I am honoured indeed.

I will always remember your this incontrovertible culmination. In my ongoing effort working on UVS I would make it an effort to look up from time to time upon your signature statement on: "Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete."

TY.  []

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

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.)

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.

Newtonian gravity has been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, although Newtonian gravity is equivalence to GR in flat spacetime, it breaksdowns when dealing with gravitation for extremely massive and dense objects. Being a moderator of this science forum, I believe you should know this common knowledge right?

Kepler's model quantitative prediction holds true only in its inertial frame of reference, it breakdowns when relative frame of references are involved. Whereas the scientific prediction based on the hypothesis of vortex theory still hold true throughout and this calculation were illustrated in the link provided, sieved through you will find them.

Similarly, Newton's laws of motion hold true only in an inertial frame of reference, at speeds approaching the speed of light it breaks down and the effects of special relativity must be taken into account to make the quantitative prediction correct. In the paradigm shift of Einstein theory of relativity, it marks the distinction between modern physics and classical physics.   

Can 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.

Hmmm... when you mentioned the physical laws that cause vortices to arise, you gave me the impression you are familiar with it. Please don't be bother with my question, even for the experts of fluid dynamics who based on thermodynamics with heat as its first principle, they could not fully understand vortex of nature.   

p.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. 

Glad to hear.

Pure evangelism of new theories without regard for scientific merit is frowned upon.

The geocentrism proponents based their theories on scientific merit of their era, they treated heliocentrism as heresy, least to say frowned upon, does that make them correct at all? Under the circumstances of such dogmas, no new perception let alone new theory could prevail at all. Don't you agree? And how could you differentiate?   

[JP]

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.

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

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.

Dear JP,

The issues in discussion seem to be diverged instead of converging; let go back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, please bear with me so things could be sort out meticulously, please let me know if you disagree with any of the followings:

The scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion as forwarded here was based on geometry, appropriately, it therefore has to be compared with Kepler’s model of planetary motion, which was also based on geometry. 

Kepler’s model of planetary motion in its applied mathematics can be used to scientifically predict the positions of planets for astronomical observation.  It approximately describes the motion of planets that can be empirically observed and their motion obey the three Kepler’s laws; this is a scientific theory. For most part of the world, Kepler’s planetary model is still being printed on all textbooks in the science of astronomy and it postulates that the orbit of every planet is an ellipse.
 
One have to be familiar with Kepler’s model in order to compare it with the scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion, otherwise the attempt would be futile. The scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion as explicitly illustrated quantitatively could scientifically predict planetary motion in relative frame of reference external to the Sun, this is where Kepler’s model would breakdown for its predictions. The applied mathematics for the scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion is there, you can’t miss it. Of course you would not find the maths therein were appropriate at all if you are making the comparison with Newtonian gravity.

For Newtonian gravity, in vector form it is explicitly written in vector equation to account for the direction of the gravitational force. Newtonian’s law is comparable with general relativity and was in fact superseded by it.

Newtonian gravity cannot be compared with this particular scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion; you simply cannot compare the scientific prediction expressed in vector equation with the scientific predictions expressed in geometry.

Einstein theory of relativity cannot be compared with this particular scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion as well.

If you want to compare Newtonian gravity with the relevant scientific prediction of vortex theory for gravity, which was also elaborated in mathematic equations that illustrate quantitatively, you can get it from the full book written by Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg, but no obligation.

If you want to inquire on the first principle for vortex theory on planetary motion as it was forwarded in this thread, it is elucidated with UVS on how nature does it and this was based on empirical observation that refers to the reality, see a UVS topic on “Orbits of satellites” that immutably illustrates with astronomical evidence that planetary motion is caused by angular momentum conserved from its vortical motion.

If you are exploring into this specific section of UVS, please take you time to mull over its unheard-of propositions, its basis is unconventional, not familiar with by most people, the paradoxes are not easy to grasp and its no mean feat for anyone to be able to accept any of those propositions at all when scrutinized. Please take it easy and easy does it.

Lets get past this hurdle before we proceed further ya?

Best regards.

[JP]

. . . 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?

[imatfaal]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

. . . you simply cannot compare the scientific prediction expressed in vector equation with the scientific predictions expressed in geometry.

This claim isn't true. 

This claim isn’t true if the first part of the sentence refers to Newtonian gravity cannot be compared with Kepler’s model of planetary motion. Newton's Principia was written to address this as a derivation and in fact it had shown the unity.

But, the first part of the sentence stated that Newtonian gravity could not be compared with this particular scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion. Let me elaborate on why it can’t and could never be able to.

Firstly, Newtonian planetary motion as explained with inverse-square law gravity and two rigid bodies motion in Newton’s three laws of motion was based on the assumption of a stationary Sun.

Secondly, the current solution for this three-body problem in astronomy was solved by pure mathematics; this is merely an applied mathematical treatment to the problem and not a scientific solution. Moreover, the elliptic orbit of planet as illustrated with these conventional models were based on inertial reference frame with a stationary Sun is a cognitive fallacy as mentioned; the Sun moves and in this external reference frame all planetary motion are no longer elliptic orbits.

I lodge a caveat here that I have no knowledge that three-body motion could be fully explained with Newtonian planetary motion; in any event if anyone shows me that it was done or could be done I will then have to swallow my words. However, anyone who disagrees with this has to specifically show proof; you can’t just simply state that it could means it could.

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.

Einstein scalar field equations or tensor equations do not describe planetary motion like Newtonian planetary motion or Kepler’s model, it merely predicts the motion of a planet more accurately when it is nearer to a large mass and therefore it could be more affected by the curvature of space as predicted with GR; Einstein had illustrated this with Mercury rising behind the Sun. However, these could not be compared with the scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion, but it could improve its accuracy for predicting the orbit of a planet when it is near to a large mass.

I reiterate that the scientific prediction of vortex theory is able to make quantitative prediction about nature; specifically it is for the planetary motion with a moving Sun.

If two theories make predictions about the same thing, then you can compare them.

I agreed with this; this has to be the basis for the comparison.

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?

I now realized where was the discrepancy.

The prediction you talked about is the quantified prediction in applied science that is based on its scientific prediction. The prediction I talked about is the scientific prediction that can make quantitative prediction.

Lets try to converge on these issues you had raised, and particularly on the issue with science theory.

When Einstein wrote his first paper on theory of relativity in 1905 during the Newtonia era, now known as the special theory of relativity (SR), the scientific predictions were only illustrated in equations. In applied science for those experiments that were based on the scientific predictions of SR, it then involved quantified predictions to eventually validate his scientific predictions based on empirically collected data. I can imagine that at then, those Newtonians would have dismissed his theory to be scientific at all, for unlike applied science in Newtonian mechanics that were full of calculated predictions, his paper did not show any.  Nonetheless, this was the initial process of a science development that had thus begun the era of modern physics. A question for you, is this Einstein’s paper for SR not a science theory?

Let’s go back a bit further. Galileo through observations with telescope had observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases similar to that of the Moon, he based on Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism for the qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus, and after an extensive period of telescopic observation, through validity analysis that was deliberated with inductive reasoning on Venus showed phases with a peculiarity, in logical empiricism with positive assertion he proved the qualitative prediction that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

There was not a single equation nor calculation for this qualitative prediction at all that was now accepted to be true. According to your definition, this is not science. But, is this not science?

If we can converge on this and you have no other issue for these particular scientific predictions of vortex theory on planetary motion, I could then proceed to discuss on an applied science that could be based on these scientific predictions. In the applied science that is based on the scientific predictions for pragmatic purposes in the science of astronomy, its quantified predictions would also be testable with empirically collected data like what you are expecting.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Hi Mathew, welcome to the UVS thread and thank you for having asked a very good quality question.

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.

UVS does explain several observable and measurable phenomena that are currently unexplainable.

UVS predicts qualitative answers on many fronts that are not in alignment with current (ie non-UVS) theories. (Note: I am not claming that these are proofs). To cite on one of the examples, see an earlier post at last page that elaborate on jet stream in this thread. Although the phenomenon of jet stream could be mathematically described, the causaility of jet stream has been a mystery in the mainstream of meterology. From the UVS perspective, its hot front and cold front thermodynamics explanation that was based on heat as the first principle is fundamentally incorrect; it suffers this foundational crisis and therefore leads to all those inexplicable anomalies. UVS illustrated the causality for jet stream rationally and asserts that vortical motion should be the first principle for its thermodynamics effect.

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.

[Bored chemist]

" 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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

" 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.

Hi BC,

Tks for dropping by to point out the mistake.

I slipped my thought with my limited mind on misplacing the causality for the polar vortex is still a mystery in meterology in place of jet stream; an identity crisis at my side.

In the UVS worldview, an atmospheric polar jet stream is driven by its polar vortex as a unisonal system, in those fast words without knowing my memory failed me hence the slip. But jet streams outside Earth are still poorly understood.   

It would be an overstatement to say that jet stream is perfectly well explained with the currently established knowledge; the mechanisms for jet stream shift on Earth are not fully understood, the jetstreams on Jupiter are still puzzling scientist and how jet streams on Sun are generated is still a mystery.

"We still don't understand exactly how jet streams trigger sunspot production," says Pesnell. "Nor do we fully understand how the jet streams themselves are generated." - excerpt from "Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?"

Best regards.

[imatfaal]

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.

Sorry Vincent - but I can make no sense of this paragraph whatsoever. 

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.

OK, its a theory of everything; but one without any quantitative predictive power

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.

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

Matthew

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

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

For anyone making any scientific claim in modern physics and is seeking for validation, your advice as above must be heeded and also must not be compromised.

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.

OK, its a theory of everything; but one without any quantitative predictive power

I have overlooked to clarify it with you that this may not be considered as a theory in the context of modern physics.

UVS is categorically a theory of everything in the natural science of phenomenology; it is a theory in the context of natural science. It develops qualitative prediction to form its basis for its applied sciences,  its quantitative predictive power could then be developed and then tested empirically.

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.

Sorry Vincent - but I can make no sense of this paragraph whatsoever.

 

In the UVS context, in its simplest form and with all due respects, it was mean to state that modern physics is a pseudoscience.

This is despite its applied sciences could paradoxically work with its wrong theories that are labelled as scientific.

The above generalization was meticulously arrived at with its paradigm shift positing invariant time and invariant space that is filled with an all-pervasive inviscid medium.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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?

Please define scientific theory; what do you specifically mean by scientific theory in your question?

However, this question suffering from the fallacy of ambiguity is also a logical fallacy in its begging the question with circular logic; it would not merit any answer and therefore has no merit as a logical question.

If so why is it on a science website?

This question suffers a logical fallacy on affirming the consequent that could only amount to conclusion construed with deductive fallacy and it was also non sequitur to its previous question.

In all events, these questions are off-topic and not pertaining to science.

Please keep the discussion in this thread pertaining to science; by invoking words such as scientific or science does not merit this as a discussion of science.