[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[peppercorn]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

[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?

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. 

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

This is a valid point.

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

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?

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://

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

[peppercorn]

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.

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.

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, ?

[Bored chemist]

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).

[Ophiolite]

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.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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"

I don’t expect everyone could comprehend like how Peppercorn did.

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,

So how Galileo had proven Venus revolve around the Sun and not the Earth was word salad or free-form poetry and has nothing to do with science?

This proof of Galileo’s is immutable; so there could only be one possibility: your argument is fallacious.

This is another fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; you are incorrigible.

since they are nothing to do with science, they shouldn't be on a science website

There is a thread on Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS) in the new theory thread. If your opinion hold true, then it shouldn’t be on the science website you mentioned. But, it has been there since early 2007 and is still being popularly discussed; it means your opinion is not true at all. In all events, it was merely your self-contradicting opinion construed with your circular reasoning.

Issue discussed, deliberated, falsified, therefore dismissed and case closed. Please don’t raise such issue for discussion again otherwise I would pay very insignificant attention at all or ignore them totally.

(a matter you seem not to have understood earlier).

Was that you who have not seemed to have understood it at all in your fallacy of misplaced concreteness? 

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Nope, it's down to Coriolis forces and heat from the Sun; perfectly well explained.

Is your assertion on “perfectly well explained.” true?

If so please perfectly explain how jet streams on Sun are generated, the mysteries in jet streams on Jupiter and how does jet stream shift occur.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

Noted.

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.

Thanks for clarifying, I now understood where were you coming from for your statement.

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.

Although it was a valid point, there is no rigid methodology for what would constitute a good scientific method.

For example, the standard scientific method was adopted for explaining planetary motion with epitrochoid cycles and it could make accurate quantitative prediction of natural events in applied mathematics, such as precession cycle, equinox and solstice. However, it was based on a foundation crisis and it is now understood as a fallacious scientific theory; experimentum summus judex.

I reiterate, 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.

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.

Since you made the effort to get down to these details, have a look at this (scroll to the bottom section), and let me know what you think. Please understand that it is still very sketchy at this stage; many details were still not certain and some facts probably could never be found.

Looking forward to your contribution.

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, ?

Seriously.

And it could be you who would be doing it instead; not necessary that it has to be me.

I had intended to keep this part for the discussion with JP, but since he has not replied and you now raised the issue and has seemed to be entertaining the vortex hypothesis, I would first show this to you instead.

IMHO, the qualitative prediction for this ipso facto phenomenon is axiomatic and primarily; its mathematical counterpart is merely another language for describing it.

I hope you would enjoy this particular exploration on vortical phenomenon of nature.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

You owe me no apology; that was merely my assumption.

BTW, was told your review on UVS was read and reread by someone over and over again. Cheers!

[Paradigmer (OP)]

We have the circumstantial evidence of what is happening at sunspots. This evidence indicates that SOMETHING makes the ionised particles emerge from sunspots. Whatever it is, it is extremely powerful. As the mean life of a sunspot is around six days, the source must be able to deliver the power consistently for a significant time.

This may be because the sun's atmosphere acts as a shield or for some other reasn.

Hi Wilf James,

It seems that the political situation for this forum does not allow me to discuss with you on alternative hypothesis at your thread for your query raised. I therefore discuss your raised issues here instead.

While I leave it to you to discuss your hypothesis with other members, I shall touch on the possibility of another energy source by invoking a UVS worldview. See a UVS topic on "Sunspot".

Please tell me what you think of this:

What if the first principle of thermodynamics of the universe is vortical motion, and heat is merely its effect?  Vortical motion of matter could beget curvilinear motion of matter as well as generating heat as its effect.

In the UVS worldview, Sun and its planets are vortically coalesced from clouds of stellar material, the precession effects of Sun and its significant planets would vortically interacts with each other in their exchange of angular momentum. In vortical resonance on the photosphere of Sun as a result of torque-free precession, it could therefore cause sunspots to spawn vortically. Vortical motion is the first principle for the mechanism of the Solar System and heat is merely its effect.

Based on the UVS model, the phenomenon of solar jet stream is caused by the polar vortex on photosphere; it is a vortrex of its polar vortex in a unisonal system. A sunspot cluster is driven and perturbed by the solar jet stream in vortical motion by exchanging angular momentum in their interactions. This is similar to atmospheric polar vortex would drive its polar jet stream that in turn drives its tornado cluster.


Raptured solar prominence

The breaking at vortex column of a colossal "corona loop" (solar prominence) causes the phenomenon of corona mass ejection; the angular momentum from spinning force of the broken vortex column would blast ionized gas with reactive centrifugal force that have overcome escape velocity of Sun (617.7km/s) to propagate the ejecta into Space as solar flares. When an instability occurs, such as excessive energy built up, dissipating vortex or sudden drops in vortex intensity when it is disturbed, the solar prominence could break easily at the mid section of the vortex column; which is the most vulnerable section with the smallest diameter vortex column that spins at the highest speed in its vortical culmination process.

I will forward more astronomical evidence later, meanwhile, please mull over the above as forwarded.

Best to you.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Would be busy and away for a month or so and is not expecting to post any reply during this period. 

[peppercorn]

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.

Since you made the effort to get down to these details, have a look at this (scroll to the bottom section), and let me know what you think. Please understand that it is still very sketchy at this stage; many details were still not certain and some facts probably could never be found.

This bit?
'Simplified mathematical analysis based on the encountering of a clear air vortex for the case study of Flight CAL611 crash'


One 'tick' to you for using a bit of (incomplete & flawed) maths - Where you are comparing the forces impacting a plane's wings entering a cyclone (made of a compressible medium -air- that it's already flying through) against the impact against water (claiming an uncontrolled dive at only 10% air speed into what you've omitted to mention is an effectively non-compressible medium).

Putting this analysis of one 'set' of events to one side for now, I can see absolutely no expression of a deeper understanding that comes about by means of referencing nature from a vortex-centred view.   Where's the stunning epiphany of logic that gives us the spring-board to a higher, deeper understanding of the physical laws?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

This bit?

No one said its gonna be that much.

One 'tick' to you for using a bit of (incomplete & flawed) maths - Where you are comparing the forces impacting a plane's wings entering a cyclone (made of a compressible medium -air- that it's already flying through) against the impact against water (claiming an uncontrolled dive at only 10% air speed into what you've omitted to mention is an effectively non-compressible medium).

This bit of maths in equivalent principle in the comparative analysis is sufficient to illustrated that the Boeing 747-200B could be disintegrated if it hit squarely on an air wall of a vortex column near the top of troposphere; it has provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for the experts to investigate further with an incident that they were absolutely clueless about. Without this bit of understanding, all those maths they had used could not work at all.

Some “ticks” to your opinions:
1. You could not understand that atmospheric vortex column of troposphere is a void volume, its displaced volume of air is replaced by rarefied stratospheric atmosphere that is made thinner by centrifugal force in the vortical motion of vortex column; hence making such fallacious deduction with the cognitive error.
2. Air wall of vortex column is effectively a "non-compressible" medium at high-speed impact; it is not the compressible medium like how you had claimed. Never experienced sitting in a plane that enters the surface of lower troposphere layer before? 

Putting this analysis of one 'set' of events to one side for now, I can see absolutely no expression of a deeper understanding that comes about by means of referencing nature from a vortex-centred view.   Where's the stunning epiphany of logic that gives us the spring-board to a higher, deeper understanding of the physical laws?

Putting this analysis of one 'set' of events to one side for now, I can see absolutely no expression of the ability for deeper understanding of the vortex theory at all; it shows you did not even bother to read the top section of that web page. Before you make tall order about great maths, where’s the profound epiphany of analytical skill to be able to understand qualitative analysis at all?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

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.

Lately I comipled an article pertaining to a fallacy of scientific method, then it reminded me of your this post.

You raised some very good points, and here is my article:

link removed by mod

I hope members here would find these reasons compelling enough.

[Airthumbs]

I smell something, something, something, erm, something, erm!