[Profpat]

Hi Vincent;

I copied your wonderful I Ching trigrams, Yin/Yang diagram and posted it on my thread An Idea. I used and incorporated the I Ching trigrams as part of my Idea and love the way the Yin/Yang is incorporated with it in your diagram. I of course will give you proper credit.

Best,

Pat

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi Vincent, I am notorious for this fact. I ask uncomfortable questions. Sorry if it has troubled you. What I suggest is lets look at the equation of the vortex very closely and decipher as to what make it the choice of nature..

Hi dipayankar,

Not troubled at all. Really. In fact I was quite astounded when you raised that question. To make sure you have not blindly hammered it right on, I spent quite a bit of time to peek at your treads and some of your other postings. And after that I decided your question should deserve focused attention, for you have a skill and gifted ability to be able to zero right into the core, its like finding a needle in haystack in a glance, not many can do that; it would take a very learned and opened mind. Truly.

My concerns to reply your last post looms in the repercursion it could arise in a UVS perspective, some elite theories are being challenged, and I thought I better caution you first handed, that this is an area I considered as a high explosive minefield (fictitious) for the paths necessary, so that we would tread carefully with caution in open discussions. This is the neck where the problems lie.

There have been many quests to find the answer pertaining to this question for vortex dynamics, it was not something new, in fact it was too old. It was the major clashes of scientific titans for four centuries, involving top brass in groups represented by chiefs of their disciplines, in consortiums and unions of meteorologists, physcists and mathematicians. The scientific concensus eventually went to meteorologists after ferocious debates relentlessly, and until now they are still dominating in the mode of thinking for this subject, however, still cannot find the answer to why nature choose that shape, and this was mentioned in open statements to justify for intensive field researching.
http://www.meteohistory.org/2005hist.../01persson.pdf

To decipher it requires one to explore deep and far in wide topics in mountains of archives, primary subjects involved are fluid dynamics, Reynolds numbers, turbulence, tidal forces, Thermal-Mechanic dynamics, Coriolis force and many more including the dismissed physicist's vortex theory.

In my last post to your question raised I have given it due attention.

When Al Gore asked the question "Can global warming be stopped?", his big ask cannot be passed or ignored.

And please keep your questions coming.

Best to you,

[dipayankar]

Hi Vincent.. Thank you so much for the accolades. I dont think I deserve them thought.. . As far as vortex is concerned, I would really like to look at the role gravitational forces play in making this shape. Somehow I have a hunch that gravity is the main culprit here...

Originally Posted by Vincent Wee-Foo Hi dipayankar, Not troubled at all. Really. In fact I was quite astounded when you raised that question. To make sure you have not blindly hammered it right on, I spent quite a bit of time to peek at your treads and some of your other postings. And after that I decided your question should deserve focused attention, for you have a skill and gifted ability to be able to zero right into the core, its like finding a needle in haystack in a glance, not many can do that; it would take a very learned and opened mind. Truly. My concerns to reply your last post looms in the repercursion it could arise in a UVS perspective, some elite theories are being challenged, and I thought I better caution you first handed, that this is an area I considered as a high explosive minefield (fictitious) for the paths necessary, so that we would tread carefully with caution in open discussions. This is the neck where the problems lie. There have been many quests to find the answer pertaining to this question for vortex dynamics, it was not something new, in fact it was too old. It was the major clashes of scientific titans for four centuries, involving top brass in groups represented by chiefs of their disciplines, in consortiums and unions of meteorologists, physcists and mathematicians. The scientific concensus eventually went to meteorologists after ferocious debates relentlessly, and until now they are still dominating in the mode of thinking for this subject, however, still cannot find the answer to why nature choose that shape, and this was mentioned in open statements to justify for intensive field researching. http://www.meteohistory.org/2005hist.../01persson.pdf To decipher it requires one to explore deep and far in wide topics in mountains of archives, primary subjects involved are fluid dynamics, Reynolds numbers, turbulence, tidal forces, Thermal-Mechanic dynamics, Coriolis force and many more including the dismissed physicist's vortex theory. In my last post to your question raised I have given it due attention. When Al Gore asked the question "Can global warming be stopped?", his big ask cannot be passed or ignored. And please keep your questions coming. Best to you,

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi dipayankar, gravity acting alone on viscous mass would not be able to create that shape. A drop of water from a height fell into a pond of water would create that shape instantaneously, if time is freezed at that very moment, the perturbation can be observed to be a curved cone shape circular depressed surface, i.e. the primary shape of a free vortex. Surface tension is the reason, this is the reversed culmination of momentum.

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi Vincent.. Thank you so much for the accolades. I dont think I deserve them thought.. . As far as vortex is concerned, I would really like to look at the role gravitational forces play in making this shape. Somehow I have a hunch that gravity is the main culprit here...

[JamesANicholson]

Hello, to everyone who has been following this thread.
Mind if I join in the fray?

I spent a little time a few years back considering the formation of vortexes in how they would fit into my own ToE.

Specifically I was trying to analyze the natural cycle of water going from ice or liquid to vapor, rising up high into the atmosphere, condensing back to liquid or ice and falling to the earth and flowing to the sea to repeat the cycle all over again.

One of the phenomena I needed Toe (sic) consider was: what was the cause of Tornadoes and Hurricanes? There seemed to be overwhelming evidence that they always occurred where two large masses of air of different temperature or pressure came together and joined each other.

It seemed that only under these conditions did the funnels or vortexes come about and in a real way it seems to be the simple result of these differentials interacting or coming together.

But I wanted to know what was going on from a molecular level. I knew that a small drop of water when vaporized would expand to fill a much bigger volume at the same pressure, so of course the opposite also happens that when vapor condensed back into liquid form, a huge volumetric pressure absence would be formed, a vacuum. So, I am wondering if this kind or processes are not going on for all variation of vortexes?

A differential of states, coupled with a volume altering condensation of one form or another?

Then as to the circular/conical shape, circles and spheres are just the most efficient shapes for containing area and volume and can be solved with basic Min/Max Calculus applications, if I remember correctly. It’s been a few years. How many of you are Mathematicians?


It seems to me that all vortexes are not causal but are the result of external conditions that manifest as vortexes as the most efficient geometry for merging of differing states of pressure and/or temperature regions.

[Profpat]

Hi Aaron;

You might want to PM David ( Dleviwing ) on your weather question. I believe he is our weather expert.

Best,

Pat

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Vincent;

I have not been able to spend time over the last 3 months in this site, but hope to find time in the future, and look forward to reading your tread as it grows. I especially love your quote of Albert Einstein:

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

I feel that this quote should be read everyday by those who are seeking answers to big questions. So many big thinkers are terrified to think against what they feel they absolutely know.

[dipayankar]

Vincent you are right.... gravity alone would not create the power to form a vortice. However as explained in the next thread, probably vacuum created will give the impetus required to form the shape. However the question remains, why this type of shape, why not something simpler? Doesnt nature believe in simplifying itself???

Originally Posted by Vincent Wee-Foo Hi dipayankar, gravity acting alone on viscous mass would not be able to create that shape. A drop of water from a height fell into a pond of water would create that shape instantaneously, if time is freezed at that very moment, the perturbation can be observed to be a curved cone shape circular depressed surface, i.e. the primary shape of a free vortex. Surface tension is the reason, this is the reversed culmination of momentum.

[JamesANicholson]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Aaron; You might want to PM David ( Dleviwing ) on your weather question. I believe he is our weather expert. Best, Pat

Hello, Pat,

I have no particular interest in the weather. My interest here is in trying to understand/explain the causal effects that are responsible for creating vortexes. It just seems that tornadoes and hurricanes are probably as good a working model to analyze as any to try to get a handle on how these structures form since they occur here close at hand and quite a lot is already know about them compared to, say, galaxy formation.



Hi there, dipayankar,

Why do you think that the typical vortex shape is not the simplest solution shape to mix things together? It seems to me that it is the simplest path of least resistance. What kind of simpler shape are you envisioning?

Also, what is your basis for thinking that nature either believes anything or that it has a preference for simplicity. The simplest form for the universe would be a gray goo of single spheroids of exactly the same size and separation from each other or a solid perfect never-ending crystal lattace. If nature has any "urges" I would say that they are most evident in living sentient beings and their propensity to seek uniqueness and superiority at manipulating their surrounding environment.


Aaron

[mkirkpatrick]

Without the conducting abilty of the vortex no existence would be possible,so lets all support the vortex,our very lives depend upon its twisting economical exchanges.



regards michael.