Universal Vortical Singularity

  • 60 Replies
  • 26240 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Universal Vortical Singularity
« on: 15/02/2010 13:43:40 »
Universal Vortical Singularity (aka UVS) is categorically a theory of everything in natural science of phenomenology, it is based on a single scientific model and has made revolutionary discoveries in numerous mysterious natural phenomena from macrocosms to microcosms that are observed in the physical universe.

See "UVS homepage", "Preface" and "The quotes of UVS" to initiate the exploration in the worldview of UVS.

This is a natural science research in phenomenology with logical empiricism that studies natural phenomena based on the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (aka UVS model), it is approached in a holistic manner with modern scientific findings to qualitatively analyze an apparently paradoxical universe with physical structures from cosmic level to subatomic level.

Through contemplation with the UVS model and by knowing the paradoxical effect of nature that could invoke transcendental views to understand the delusions for clarifying the misconceptions of the observed natural phenomena, it meticulously solves the cognitive paradoxes that render the complexly inversed illusions. 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.

For those who are entering into the domain of UVS, I wish you an enjoyable and fruitful experience for your exploration in the world view of UVS.

Topics of UVS are open for discussion in this "New Theories" forum, all enquiries are welcome.

vincent
« Last Edit: 14/05/2010 08:18:59 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #1 on: 18/02/2010 18:33:01 »
For the benefits of those people who are not familiar with the theory of everything, kindly take note it is generally unheard of that there is a hypothesis based on a single scientific model, is substantiated with immutable evidence, could comprehensively and coherently explain the physical universe for its empirically observed natural phenomena, on how they work from cosmic level to subatomic level in a universally unified concept with a universal cellular clockwork mechanism interacting in overall unison, and this is conformed with the laws of physics in conservation of energy; the world view of UVS offers a new unified way of seeing how the physical universe from macrocosms to microcosms works in perpetual unisonal motion as a single system in a single model.

For your initial appraisal of UVS, it is recommended that you should browse through the UVS topics on “Overviews of UVS” and “The paradoxical effect of nature”, scrutinizing on the first few paragraphs in each of the two topics should be quite sufficient to give you a rough idea of its overall content. Please also glance through the quotes of UVS in a collection of excerpts with sculptural ideas that were illuminated during the UVS research; these excerpts are the essential philosophical aspects of UVS.

« Last Edit: 23/09/2010 10:52:51 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #2 on: 22/02/2010 13:27:36 »
The paradoxical effect of nature is a natural effect that can mislead an observer in a state of delusion through cognitive paradoxes with complexly inversed illusions. The physical universe in a universal vortical system is imbued with this paradoxical nature and all its harmonically nested creations are inherited with this paradoxical characteristic.

The entire universe is apparently paradoxical. - UVS inspired


In the worldview of UVS, the paradoxical effect of nature is a pillar concept.

See a UVS topic on "An apparently paradoxical universe" that illustrates on some known paradoxical illusions in natural phenomena that have been empirically observed and scientifically understood.



« Last Edit: 22/04/2010 05:46:20 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #3 on: 24/02/2010 09:46:49 »
From the UVS perspective that is based on unisonal vortex mechanism, the planetary rings of Saturn are formed as a result of multiple polar vortices of many atmospheric layers have had their vortex eyes opened to the extend that they had touched the equatorial plane.

The polar vortices from the two poles of the planet had compressed the atmospheres into a thin disk as nested flat rings; the vortical effect of polar vortex pairs renders the phenomenon of planetary rings.


Saturn with its mysterious planetary rings, observable with a backyard telescope.

In solar system, other than the planetary rings of Saturn are observed, many of such mysterious phenomenon have also been observed on Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune.

This mysterious phenomenon is merely a cognitive paradox rendered by a vortical motion that naturally negates the observer.

For further elucidation, see a UVS topic on "The mysterious planetary rings of Saturn" that illustrates an animation to comprehensively explain the phenomenon. (*The animation somehow could not be loaded here.)

UVS qualitatively predicts that planetary rings are flattened polar vortex pairs.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2010 13:54:58 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #4 on: 02/03/2010 20:31:51 »
The NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured a rare view of Saturn's nearly symmetrical aurorae on both polar regions in an image as shown below. From the perspective of UVS, the polar aurorae are driven by its polar vortex pair. If this pair of polar vortices with an invisible lower atmospheric pause layer are opened on both polar regions till they touch the equatorial plane, they would form as an innermost planetary ring.


In January and March 2009, astronomers used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to record Saturn while its rings were edge-on. The result was a rare view of the giant planet's nearly symmetrical auroral shows, seen at both poles simultaneously. It takes Saturn almost 30 years to orbit the sun, and the opportunity to image both poles occurs only twice during that time. After processing the ultraviolet data, NASA released the image on Feb. 15.

Despite having been observed 400 years ago, the causality of planetary rings is still a mystery in astronomy and astrophysics.

~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #5 on: 07/03/2010 17:53:23 »
Satellite image of the Antarctica Ozone Hole

From the UVS perspective that is based on unisonal vortex mechanism, the Antarctica Ozone Hole phenomenon is caused by vortical interactions in the vortex column of a stratosphere polar vortex, the reason to Antarctica Ozone Hole phenomenon is primarily a mechanical cause.

Although the chemical reaction of chlorine at very low temperature destroying ozone is known and scientifically proven to be caused in super freezing air, the sunken mesosphere with super freezing air inside the vortex column would have reacted with the ozone layer outside the vortex column and therefore has rendered the chemical reaction as empirically observed; this is a complexly inversed illusion that was misled in a cognitive paradox.

The chemical reaction destroying ozone around vortex column on the outside wall is a secondary effect caused by the polar vortex, it is not the primarily cause for Antarctica Ozone Hole phenomenon. The vortex column of Antarctica Polar Vortex is a void that has been replaced by sunken mesosphere, ozone layer within the vortex column is therefore vortically displaced mechanically; this renders the phenomenon of Antarctica Ozone Hole.

UVS qualitatively predicts that the ozone hole is caused by the polar vortex that displaces the ozone layer inside the vortex column.

For elucidation on how this cognitive paradox is solved with the UVS model, see a UVS topic on "Antarctica Ozone Hole".
« Last Edit: 01/05/2010 14:12:29 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #6 on: 16/03/2010 07:51:04 »
The moons Prometheus and Pandora
shepherd the F ring of Saturn. See the enlarged video clip.



The video clip on right illustrated in an external link on "Planetary Ring" shows the gravitational pertubations by Saturn's moons Prometheus and Pandora interacting on the F ring of Saturn. Evidently, in correlerated motion of these moons, it is immutable they had correspondingly formed spiral wave patterns on the planetary ring.

See UVS topics on "Tidal bore" that is illustrated with immutable evidence that this is caused by lunisolar precession during equinox, "Solar system alignment effect", "Orbit of satellites" in "Cosmic evolution based on UVS model" that illustrates the vortical motion in all celestial objects, "UVS model", "Differential rotation" and a section on "Do an interactive experiment to understand the effects of torque-free precession".
« Last Edit: 14/05/2010 08:23:21 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #7 on: 01/04/2010 06:18:32 »
Star HL Tau and its protoplanet HL Tau b.

This is an awesome image of a newly formed star HL Tau within Milky Way. It is still at infancy stage of a star birth with a protoplanet HL Tau b (small circular bright image at slightly after one o'clock position) in the process of forming as a gaseous planet.

This image is based on data captured by radio telescopes, is a protoplanetary disk with a view from a polar region showing spiral arms of the evolving star HL Tau that appears to be driving a protoplanet HL Tau b to form in the accretion disc with a "womb of gas". Prior to this simulated image there were only artist’s impressions available for protoplanetary disc in showing the accretion disk with spiral arms.

From the UVS perspective on the dynamics of solar system, a consolidated planet after "clearing the neighborhood" is still vortically propagating around a vortex ring with transferred momentum from the primordial protoplanet. From an inertial reference frame, a planetary orbit develops from one of these vortex rings, in primordial stage a vortex ring is a standing wave formed by a dilated harmonic vortex that has extended from the vortex core. Satellites of planet are still vortically propagating in a manner of longitudinal waves on the revolving path of the planet with its conserved angular momentum, this angular momentum was transferred from vortical dynamics of a primordial rotating satellite vortex that revolves around the main vortex. From the galactic reference frame, it can be visualized that the movement of Earth is a transferred vortical motion; Earth vortically revolves around the Sun that is also vortically revolving around the Galactic center.

Through this visualization, we can comprehensively understand that all the orbits of satellites are developed as a result of conserved angular momentum transferred from vortical dynamics of a primordial bipolar vortexes pair that exchange angular momentum in a unisonal manner. 

UVS qualitatively predicts that orbit of satellites are developed as a result of conserved angular momentum transferred from vortical dynamics of a primordial bipolar vortexes pair.

“All celestial objects revolve in vortical motion.” - UVS inspired


See a link on "The Universal Helicola" that presents a marvelous and immutable illustration for spiral motion of Earth's path in space on page 269 in figure 13.1, it was elaborated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively. See also video clips on "Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun" that illustrates the helical motion of Earth in a moving Sun and "The solar system's motion thru space".

For further elucidation, see a UVS topic on "Cosmic evolution based on UVS model" that elaborates this vortical motion of the physical universe in the macrocosms.

 
« Last Edit: 14/05/2010 08:26:09 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #8 on: 17/04/2010 10:18:51 »
From the UVS perspective that is based on unisonal vortex mechanism, the brightness of a star depends on electric current generated by the dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of its vortically fused plasma that causes plasmatic matter to glow; electric glow discharge. From the classical mechanics viewpoint, a particle with mass if driven in vortical motion would produce kinetic energy that could be converted into electrical energy for the process of electric glow discharge.

The noble gas enclosed in an electrically powered plasma lamp is not burnt as fuel for the plasma to glow, hydrogen would glow as long as it is ionized electrically in encapsulation; ionized gases are not burnt as fuel when they glow to radiate electromagnetic waves and produce heat upon interaction with matter. Some empirical observations for electric glow discharge in natural phenomena are the polar aurorae of Jupiter and Saturn that glow with their ionized hydrogen excited in vortical motion of its polar vortex. Although in vortical fusion process the hydrogen atoms of a star could fused to create heavier elements, the brightness of a star that is driven in perpetual vortical motion does not depend on the amount of nuclear fuel available for the star to burn; this is merely a misconception in a cognitive paradox that is rendered in a complexly inversed illusion.

      
   Plasma lamp         Hydrogen glow     Aurorae of Saturn

From the perspective of UVS, without sufficient vortical motion in transferring of angular momentum to drive a gas giant it therefore could not glow brilliantly; a brown dwarf is a failed star that has not acquired enough vortical momentum to excite its hydrogen atoms to glow like a typical star.

UVS qualitatively predicts that the brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of vortically consolidated plasma.

« Last Edit: 17/04/2010 17:26:58 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #9 on: 01/05/2010 13:34:58 »
In logical empiricism supported with immutable astronomical evidence, the Solar System evolves from the coalescing of stellar clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave and they are vortically propagating in longitudinal waves.

UVS qualitatively predicts that the Solar System evolves from the coalescing of stellar clouds in resonant frequencies of standing wave and they are vortically propagating in longitudinal waves.

"All physical existences are weaved in vortical motion;
nothing physical in nature is not vortical.
"
"
- UVS inspired

For further elucidation, see UVS topics on "The model of Universal Vortical Singularity" and "Cosmic evolution based on UVS model".


« Last Edit: 01/05/2010 14:19:43 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #10 on: 10/09/2010 21:03:57 »
 
 Polar jet streams    Polar vortex    Cloud bands of Jupiter

From the perspective of UVS that is based on unisonal vortex mechanism, the two pairs of westerly jet streams roaming on surface of the troposphere of Earth are formed by polar vortices of higher altitude atmospheres from tropopause and stratosphere. These two pairs of westerly jet streams are known as polar jet streams and subtropical jet streams. Polar jet streams are formed cyclonically at the boundaries of warm and cold air around a polar region are vortical singularities of vortex column and this infers they are caused by unisonal vortices. The boundaries of warm and cold air on surface of troposphere is caused by sunken stratosphere that has filled the void of vortex column.

UVS qualitatively predicts that polar jet stream with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of a higher atmosphere has sunk into the void of vortex column.

See a UVS topic on "Vortices of Jupiter" that illustrates how jet streams are driven by by their polar vortices to form as cloud bands.

In the UVS worldview that the atmosphere layers have formed as vortexes on a polar axis, for the smaller inner loop at polar region that is conventionally known as polar jet stream, it is the vortrex of tropopause's polar vortex, while the larger loop at subtropical region is conventionally known as subtropical jet stream, it is the vortrex of stratosphere's polar vortex.

Polar vortex is a global scale clear air cyclonic storm that drives a meandering jet stream around it.

See a UVS topic on "Bermuda Triangle" that elaborates on how vortical phenomenon could cause aircraft to mysteriously disappear from radar screen.

~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #11 on: 11/09/2010 03:53:57 »
Hi Vincent,

I'm not surprised that vortices appear all over the place.  They're fairly common in nature because of the way flowing matter/energy moves.

I would be surprised if you could base a rigorous theory of everything off of vortices.  Can you give an example of a scientific prediction your theory can make?

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #12 on: 13/09/2010 12:48:47 »
Hi Vincent,

I'm not surprised that vortices appear all over the place.  They're fairly common in nature because of the way flowing matter/energy moves.

I would be surprised if you could base a rigorous theory of everything off of vortices.  Can you give an example of a scientific prediction your theory can make?

Hi JP,

Welcome to this vortex thread.

Indeed vortices appear all over the place like how you had described above.

In the current modern physics era, I believe you should know there was a clear definition for what would constitute as a theory. Under this context, although the theory of evolution had been established on proven facts that are widely accepted in its field by experts, it is regraded as a theory in the biological literature; UVS is expected to receive such treatment in modern physics. 

Currently, the research of UVS is focused on solving natural cognitive paradoxes based on the UVS model in logical empiricism to illustrates how the entire physical universe works in a perpetual unisonal motion as a single system from macrocosms to microcosms. The methodology used is similar to how Galileo had proven that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth with his qualitative evaluation. See a UVS topic on "Validity analysis" that elaborates on how Galileo did this in logical empiricism and had therefore arrived to a revolutionary scientific discovery that is fundamentally true.
« Last Edit: 13/09/2010 17:25:21 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #13 on: 13/09/2010 12:55:47 »
....continues from above post....

A vortex contemporary was working on amalgamating UVS with the Aether Physic model by David Thomson that are full of scientific predictions in quantum structures of spherical vortex. Here is one example of APM scientific predictions on "Casimir effect from first principles". (Note: somehow the links for APM are not allowed here... o-O. Try google for "APM predictions" instead.)

For UVS, I leave the work for quantitative predictions of vortical phenomenon to such maths wizards and focus on qualitative evaluation of natural phenomena by solving cognitive paradoxes that were largely overlooked in modern science.

On this note, let me bring you to one of the qualitative predictions of UVS that is now proven for its revolutionary scientific discovery with the support of "Polar Vortex Demarcation" by NASA in its satellite's observation; the Antarctica Ozone Hole.

UVS posits that space and time are invariants and aether in vortical motion exists; this is a paradigm shift from modern physics for its basic assumptions.

I know it is near impossible for anyone to put aside his firm belief in modern physics and the so-called proven scientific evaluation method for exploring UVS in its paradigm shift. For those hardcore proponents of modern physics, please take it easy with UVS, my suggestion is kindly adopt a mentality to entertain the propositions of UVS as they were presented so as to explore its worldview without prejudice.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle

Galileo's principle of relativity had suffered a wrong assumption that posited the speed of light is infinite; this was the consensus in his era and at then it could not be ruled out with his experiment that postulated the speed of light has limit. By factoring in the speed of light has limit into Galilean transformation, it could be analytically visualized to correctly describe astronomical phenomena coherently without any contradiction. See a UVS topic on "Qualitative evaluation on time dilation" that illustrates on the paradoxes suffered in modern physics with its unassailable mathematical deduction.

My friend from the little red dot, best to you.
« Last Edit: 20/09/2010 16:36:05 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #14 on: 13/09/2010 21:49:42 »
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle


"Have you never heard of proof by loud assertion?" - Geezer
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #15 on: 14/09/2010 07:45:02 »
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle


"Have you never heard of proof by loud assertion?" - Geezer

You bet. That's what was probably done in the geocentrism era by the authoritarians when Galileo states that Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth; the proof for all celestial objects are revolving around the Earth was held by talking at the top of their voices in the backdrop of its supreme organisation that was thought as could never be wrong with it.
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #16 on: 14/09/2010 08:43:02 »
Quote
"Have you never heard of proof by loud assertion?" - Geezer

Hi Geezer,

After thought you seem to have a nice quote with another similar one that was used in your signature section; I recalled I could used this quote of yours many times as my standard reply for some of my previous posts. Even for my last post to JP, your quote would fit better than the Aristotle quote used. TY.  [:)]

Btw, how did you get the animation there? It doesn't seems to work for me when I tried it previously.  [???]

Best regards, 
« Last Edit: 14/09/2010 09:15:55 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #17 on: 14/09/2010 17:50:20 »
Hi Vincent,

Sorry! I could not resist it  [;D].

JimBob put the animation in a post when we were trading "insults". I thought it was so appropriate that I stuck it in my signature. I'm not sure how it works either!
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #18 on: 15/09/2010 09:58:29 »
Hi Vincent,

Sorry! I could not resist it  [;D].

JimBob put the animation in a post when we were trading "insults". I thought it was so appropriate that I stuck it in my signature. I'm not sure how it works either!

No worry. Its done. Probably the system of this forum enables the animating function for a member after a certain numbers of post.  [:D]
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #19 on: 19/09/2010 16:59:58 »
I would be surprised if you could base a rigorous theory of everything off of vortices.  Can you give an example of a scientific prediction your theory can make?

Here is an immutable scientific prediction of vortex theory on planetary motion, it was thoroughly illustrated qualitatively, analytically and quantitatively.   
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #20 on: 20/09/2010 08:48:35 »
"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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #21 on: 20/09/2010 14:02:02 »
"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.
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #22 on: 21/09/2010 03:45:49 »
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.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #23 on: 21/09/2010 07:05:27 »
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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #24 on: 21/09/2010 07:49:07 »
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.
 
Quote
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.

Quote
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?
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #25 on: 21/09/2010 09:26:53 »
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.)


Quote
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.

Quote
 
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.


*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #26 on: 21/09/2010 09:32:33 »
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.  [:D]
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #27 on: 21/09/2010 17:40:46 »
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.   

Quote
Quote
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.   

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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?   
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #28 on: 22/09/2010 02:26:43 »
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.
« Last Edit: 22/09/2010 08:51:06 by JP »

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #29 on: 23/09/2010 09:50:24 »
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.

« Last Edit: 23/09/2010 10:22:18 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #30 on: 23/09/2010 10:19:32 »
. . . 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?

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #31 on: 23/09/2010 10:31:16 »
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.
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #32 on: 26/09/2010 15:45:16 »
. . . 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #33 on: 26/09/2010 16:25:10 »
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.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2010 19:03:47 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #34 on: 26/09/2010 19:51:09 »
" 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #35 on: 26/09/2010 21:09:35 »
" 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.
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #36 on: 27/09/2010 11:55:46 »
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. 

Quote
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


Quote
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


« Last Edit: 27/09/2010 11:57:17 by imatfaal »
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #37 on: 27/09/2010 18:48:45 »
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.


~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #38 on: 27/09/2010 19:45:34 »
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?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #39 on: 28/09/2010 15:39:50 »
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.

Quote
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. 
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #40 on: 28/09/2010 15:56:05 »
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.

Dear Ophiolote,

Your reviews on UVS had drawn some interest from people who have been following the development of UVS. I was being asked to decipher the meaning of many words you had profoundly used in your review, and therefore I now append your review with explanatory links on my UVS homepage under a section on “Some resonated remarks received that are relevant to Universal Vortical Singularity (aka UVS)”.

However, I was not entirely sure with one of your definitions for the terminology on "pan-phenomena".

A more relevant definition in a dictionary definition for pan states it as “to criticize severely” for verb used with object; then it may be interpreted as severely criticized phenomena.

In my country, there is a highway called Pan Island Expressway, this is the oldest and longest of Singapore's expressways that covers the widest range spanning across the country and links with all other major highways. I was more inclined to intrepret that you meant “integration of broad-based phenomena” for you text on “integration of pan-phenomena”.

Please advise and thanks in advance.



p.s. reason for editing: changed “integration of a wide range of phenomena” to “integration of broad-based phenomena”; applying razor.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2010 04:51:57 by Vincent »
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #41 on: 28/09/2010 16:59:29 »
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?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

For your UVS theory this means testing of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.

No one is going to do this for you.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #42 on: 28/09/2010 19:37:44 »
Vincent.
Please define each and every word you use or you are guilty of the same logical fallacy that I was in failing to state what "scientific theory" means

Of course, most people would have realised I meant, if not quite exactly the definition given here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definition
then something very close to it.

Now you know what I mean by theory, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the question.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #43 on: 29/09/2010 17:33:12 »
However, I was not entirely sure with one of your definitions for the terminology on "pan-phenomena".

In my country, there is a highway called Pan Island Expressway, this is the oldest and longest of Singapore's expressways that covers the widest range spanning across the country and links with all other major highways. I was more inclined to intrepret that you meant “integration of broad-based phenomena” for you text on “integration of pan-phenomena”.

Please advise and thanks in advance.
Pan used in hyphenation (implicit or explicit) with another word connotes universality. Pan American Airways, Pan American Hghway, pantheist, etc. this was the intended meaning in my post.

I am throughly familiar with the Pan Island Expressway. I recall when the only section that existed ran past the south side of Toa Payoh. Now, of course, I use it to come from the airport, or to visit our factories in Jurong. Its extension down past the end of Bukit Timah almost eliminated the house I had in Eng Kong Park, but by that time I had long since moved to Meyer Road.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #44 on: 30/09/2010 14:52:15 »
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?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

You seem to be replying to my question on definition for scientific theory as you had quoted above, but this was a definition for scientific method; it would render your argument untenable.

I take it take you want to discuss about scientific method for UVS like how you state it as quoted below, thus, it could then be worthy for a discussion. 

Quote
For your UVS theory this means testing of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.

This is a valid point.

Quote
No one is going to do this for you.

This is a self-defeating prophecy that in time to come could only be proven wrong.

See “MAXWELL AND FARADAY”; the possibility could not be absolutely ruled out just because you guess so.


~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #45 on: 30/09/2010 15:02:40 »
Vincent.
Please define each and every word you use or you are guilty of the same logical fallacy that I was in failing to state what "scientific theory" means

You have made a lame logic by stating that each and every word used by other have to be defined so that it does not commit the fallacy you have so alleged; this is a logical fallacy of accident with sweeping generalization. You are thus making irrelevant conclusion by affirming the consequent.

When you use an ambiguous word in your begging the question with circular logic, you are committing a logical fallacy that renders your question intenible with the ambiguity.

Quote
Of course, most people would have realised I meant, if not quite exactly the definition given here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definition
then something very close to it.

Referring to the link forwarded by you, does the theory of biological evolution is not a theory of modern physics means that it isn’t a scientific theory?

It could not be absolutely true if you say no, and if you say yes then why was it regarded as a scientific theory in one of the contexts of pedagogical definition you forwarded, and not definite in the other context? Can’t you understand the logical fallacy?

Quote
Now you know what I mean by theory, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the question.

The boundaries between theory and phenomenology, and between phenomenology and experiment, are fuzzy. – Excerpt from Phenomenology (science)

You incoherent questions were construed with fallacies, and these fallacies were meticulously addressed for you in the previous post. Why couldn’t you listen?http://
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #46 on: 30/09/2010 15:07:24 »
However, I was not entirely sure with one of your definitions for the terminology on "pan-phenomena".

In my country, there is a highway called Pan Island Expressway, this is the oldest and longest of Singapore's expressways that covers the widest range spanning across the country and links with all other major highways. I was more inclined to intrepret that you meant “integration of broad-based phenomena” for you text on “integration of pan-phenomena”.

Please advise and thanks in advance.
Pan used in hyphenation (implicit or explicit) with another word connotes universality. Pan American Airways, Pan American Hghway, pantheist, etc. this was the intended meaning in my post.

I am throughly familiar with the Pan Island Expressway. I recall when the only section that existed ran past the south side of Toa Payoh. Now, of course, I use it to come from the airport, or to visit our factories in Jurong. Its extension down past the end of Bukit Timah almost eliminated the house I had in Eng Kong Park, but by that time I had long since moved to Meyer Road.

I couldn’t have explained this better.

I have now changed the explanatory link for this terminology to your this post.

Thank you very much.

So you reside in Singapore! I am delighted. Someday we should conveniently catch up in an astronomy session? I would be able to show you through empirical observation and by illustration that those moons of Jupiter or Saturn are in fact propagating in resonated vortical motion carried by their planets that are also zipping vortically through space. I hope to get this animation done up soon so it could be posted on the Internet to share with those likeminded people. I happened to have kept a piece of ophiolite with a trilobite fossil in it, perhaps you could tell me more about it when we meet someday.
~ vincent / Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS)

“It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #47 on: 30/09/2010 15:43:34 »
You seem to be replying to my question on definition for scientific theory as you had quoted above, but this was a definition for scientific method; it would render your argument untenable.
I state the definition of the scientific method, but this is not stated as a argument. Hence the validity of my statement is not in question.
I hoped you'd grasp that I was relating to it because having an understanding of the scientific method is a prerequisite to validating (or invalidating) a theory scientifically.


Quote
For your UVS theory this means testing of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.
This is a valid point.

Good! At last! Does this mean you're going to take your own advice.

If so, please:
Firstly, describe an experiment that would scientifically test of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.
Secondly, use mathematics to predict what outcome the experiment should yield if it is to validate your theory.

I appreciate that you might not have the 'set-up' for the experiment personally, but a description will do for now.

Quote
No one is going to do this for you.
This is a self-defeating prophecy that in time to come could only be proven wrong.
See MAXWELL AND FARADAY; the possibility could not be absolutely ruled out just because you guess so.
Seriously, ???????

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #48 on: 30/09/2010 19:55:08 »
Frankly Vincent it's difficult to understand what you mean.
For example when you say "You seem to be replying to my question on definition for scientific theory as you had quoted above, but this was a definition for scientific method; it would render your argument untenable." what do you mean by the highlighted word "this"?
Do you mean my reply,
your question,
the definition of scientific theory.
Also, what do you men by "it"

Come to think of it, never mind. It can't possibly matter unless you can do what Peppercorn has asked.

Firstly, describe an experiment that would scientifically test of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.
Secondly, use mathematics to predict what outcome the experiment should yield if it is to validate your theory.

Because, if you can't do that, then your ideas are word salad or free-form poetry and, since they are nothing to do with science, they shouldn't be on a science website (a matter you seem not to have understood earlier).

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Vortical Singularity
« Reply #49 on: 01/10/2010 08:46:02 »
So you reside in Singapore! I am delighted.
sorry. I gave an inaccurate impression. I used to reside in Singapore many years ago, for several years. I now visit occassionally. I was last there in July last year.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.