[PoPpAScience]

Hi Vincent;

Thanks for the clarification on proper spelling on plural vortex. Let me see if I got it right. If I talk about more then one single vortex, I would say vortices? If I talk about a vortex that has multiple vortices in side it, I would call it a vortexes? That would leave vortex's as improper spelling? When I use spell check it offers vortices's, as a correction for vortices.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Originally Posted by PoPpAScience Hi Vincent; Thanks for the clarification on proper spelling on plural vortex. Let me see if I got it right. If I talk about more then one single vortex, I would say vortices? If I talk about a vortex that has multiple vortices in side it, I would call it a vortexes? That would leave vortex's as improper spelling? When I use spell check it offers vortices's, as a correction for vortices.

Take a look at the multiple vortexes cascaded inside a polar aurora, separated by its pause layers. In UVS perspective, this is driven by a single polar vortex formed on overlapping layers of different density atmospheres, in another study this single vortical form is referred as vortexes on multiple sheet layers of different viscous mass. For this UVS refers it as a single polar vortex within a vortical form through several atmospheric layers.

In the meandering polar vortex of satellite image, there was a smaller satellite vortex (a small green circle) formed at 6 o'clock position within the whole vortical interaction, both also have cascading vortexes within their single vortical forms. For this UVS refers them as two vortices; a polar vortex with its satellite vortex.

In classical definition, both plural spelling of vortex can be used to describe more than a single vortex. As for spelling for vortex's, vortexes', vortice's or vortices' all seem to be alright checking with online dictionary. I don't think that suggestion for Internet spelling check for vortices's is correct.

Best regards,

[Profpat]

Hi Vincent;

Thank you for your input, spectacular and informative photos, and your spelling lesson.

Best to you,

Pat

[dipayankar]

It seems that the vortex is the preferred shape of nature. But how will this shape help us in our quest for the ToE?

Originally Posted by Vincent Wee-Foo Take a look at the multiple vortexes cascaded inside a polar aurora, separated by its pause layers. In UVS perspective, this is driven by a single polar vortex formed on overlapping layers of different density atmospheres, in another study this single vortical form is referred as vortexes on multiple sheet layers of different viscous mass. For this UVS refers it as a single polar vortex within a vortical form through several atmospheric layers. In the meandering polar vortex of satellite image, there was a smaller satellite vortex (a small green circle) formed at 6 o'clock position within the whole vortical interaction, both also have cascading vortexes within their single vortical forms. For this UVS refers them as two vortices; a polar vortex with its satellite vortex. In classical definition, both plural spelling of vortex can be used to describe more than a single vortex. As for spelling for vortex's, vortexes', vortice's or vortices' all seem to be alright checking with online dictionary. I don't think that suggestion for Internet spelling check for vortices's is correct. Best regards,

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar It seems that the vortex is the preferred shape of nature. But how will this shape help us in our quest for the ToE?

Hi Dipayankar;

While the vortex structure is in nature, I'm not sure that it's the preferred structure. There is also the cubical structure for crystaline substances; the spherical structure for stars, planets and other heavenly bodies; the circular structure for many galaxies; and so on. I don't know if nature has a preferrence for structure, rather it appears that form follows substance.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

How do you like my new avatar?

[dipayankar]

You are right Prof. I was reading in the Nature Physics Letters that the light interference patterns on a bubble sometimes takes the shape of a vortex. I think all these shapes conform to the minimalisation theory which means that nature stives to retain the shape that takes the minimal energy.

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; While the vortex structure is in nature, I'm not sure that it's the preferred structure. There is also the cubical structure for crystaline substances; the spherical structure for stars, planets and other heavenly bodies; the circular structure for many galaxies; and so on. I don't know if nature has a preferrence for structure, rather it appears that form follows substance. Best to all, Pat

[dipayankar]

Its stunningly refreshing Prof. I was reminded of the Olympics

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; How do you like my new avatar?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar You are right Prof. I was reading in the Nature Physics Letters that the light interference patterns on a bubble sometimes takes the shape of a vortex. I think all these shapes conform to the minimalisation theory which means that nature stives to retain the shape that takes the minimal energy.

Hi Dipayankar;

It seems you may be refering to Dr. Wolfe's wave theory, which has a lot to be said for it.
Similar:

The contemporary action approach for physical systems yields the same results as those found using differential equations to describe the system, but only requires the states of the physical variable to be specified at two points, called the initial and final states. The values of the physical variable at all intermediate points may then be determined by 'minimizing' the action.

Here they seem to be discussing strings, when they refer to 2 points, beginning and ending. But again I have no problem viewing strings as vibrating vortexes. Also the electron orbital was mentioned in minimization theory. Additionally a closed string would approximate a circle. Which again may be viewed I guess as a vortex.

All I need is a yellow and a black ring to have the olympic rings. Of course I was using the Borromean Rings in my avatar to represent the foundation of my An Idea.

Best to you,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Just for my knowledge Prof. do you think a closed string and a vortex would behave the same way?

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; It seems you may be refering to Dr. Wolfe's wave theory, which has a lot to be said for it. Similar: The contemporary action approach for physical systems yields the same results as those found using differential equations to describe the system, but only requires the states of the physical variable to be specified at two points, called the initial and final states. The values of the physical variable at all intermediate points may then be determined by 'minimizing' the action. Here they seem to be discussing strings, when they refer to 2 points, beginning and ending. But again I have no problem viewing strings as vibrating vortexes. Also the electron orbital was mentioned in minimization theory. Additionally a closed string would approximate a circle. Which again may be viewed I guess as a vortex. All I need is a yellow and a black ring to have the olympic rings. Of course I was using the Borromean Rings in my avatar to represent the foundation of my An Idea. Best to you, Pat