The Universal Vortical Singularity

[dipayankar]

In effect you are considering aether here. Then it makes sense.

Hi Dip, ok I would try here ... motion of the universe effect based on varied density but do not forget the mass behind it? It sounds to simple and it is in the simple ...

that is not complete a description I would like to give nor the end of ponder to me... remember it is more then just a medium ... it is a clumping of many events this great ... pulse ... g

[G_burnett]

In effect you are considering aether here. Then it makes sense.

yes in a state of motion and the motion is both expanding and condensing ...

depending on how you want to look at it or rather where you are looking from.


It all shows up quite clearly if you look at the spin of the motion in varied state of exist. spin not being given its due over the study of all because when you go there with spin it sort of throws a wrench into things. Now it is showing up to be a big factor in the large, Venus, Saturn ... magnetic field containment of solar flare up and join in vortex to planets ... Vincent photos of galactic events ... each taken with spin are explained ... and now the small too. The reels of interacting particle spin, the drift, the drag, the advance, the overpowering ... the conjoin and empathic response of one particle to the other, the beat the musical instruments and the spinning wave pulse.

The potential more then just a tool to control like one might play with a race car set having a track the cars are hoped to stay in the groove on to then smash ... but to effect. ... this is where science is beginning to show promise and understanding of the all. The pieces are being picked up after the smashing and looked at one by one as they are found but it does not tell us how they were all together when they were working, they are not in motion just pieces. and when they describe the motion they say it was just a controlled stream man made to the ends wanted ... pieces.
take a cross section and you do not see the spin, just an uncertainty principle manifested, it will be some where in the crossection.... Oh he deserved the Nobel for the uncertainty principle .. the great act of all, how else could he not give the bomb to the likes of Hitler but by making up the excuse nothing was for sure down that far? Then he got indoctrinated to the wants of the party ... yea right. either go along or die.

there is no real uncertainty principle Dip. measurement can be made and understanding acquired. You are in India? want to hear some music being played in Spain? build a better receiver. that is science in a nutshell for me ... welcome to my world IMHO graham.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Sorry....I meant gravity is NOT a pull event.

jag

Hi Jag,

I seconded Graham on the rest of your comment indicated the error, no worry.

What I noticed is you have made a landmark crossover, not a trival undertake and you have made it.

Best regards,

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

I might also add that gravity could also be an effect of the vortical motion of Aether.

That's right on. Based on UVS, the effect of gravity is caused by vortical motion of aether; particulation of plasmatic bubble in aether that in isotropy has potential density that renders the effect of gravity.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Vincent

Have not read you in here for a while and hope all is fine.

I ran across this animation in researching some old Greek material you may like to look at.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_spiral

~kind regards g

This animation describes the wobbling of a dual core vortex in an elastic manner in their independent axes. Evidently, the Antratical Ozone Hole behaves in such manner on cyclical basis as a result of the orbiting moon around Earth. Its a wonder how did the old Greek came to this pictorial. The polar vortex of Venus in your latest post also seems to behave in the same manner, its hourglass formation is clearly a dual core vortex, the other formations are the different phases of the dual core vortex.

Thanks for these postings.

Thanks for the info.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

But lets not go off the subject of explaining gravity in vortex terms in the small.

Will the neutron free from an atomic bond no bond event fall toward the core of a larger mass? No it does not.

Will an atom do this? ... sometimes and the reason is density of the medium it is in.

Will a molecule of atoms do this? sometimes and the reason is of the density it is in.

So the density not only has meaning as a medium but as a state of density and ... "a state of what motion the medium is in."

Am I getting this right Vincent?

Correct; the state of vortical motion the viscous medium is in.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi all
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...venus-eye.html
Vincent .. you have to see these shots of venus.

enjoy all. kind regards G.

Thanks Graham, very good images.

They compared the vortrex that drives a hurricane to the polar vortex of Venus and cited that they are different, seems like the mainstream has a lot to catch up in vortex science.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Better look at this one my friend.

Are they close or what?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27238333/

G

They are still as lost as they were; new observations data but based on same old knowledge with moot reasoning.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

yes in a state of motion and the motion is both expanding and condensing ...

This is correct Graham, that's the basic logical explanation based on UVS, the synergetic of concurrent expanding and condensing of aether with vortical motion in the physical universe. See a latest UVS topic under "Logic and belief systems" where synergetics of nature is further elaborated.

Dip, this should answer your query, and would like to comment you on your very penetrating question. In case you penetrate further on how aether comes into existence at the first place, I have to concede that I don't know it exactly, other than speculating it using the UVS model in a further paradigm shift with a hypothesis that it could come about by the synergetic of a boundless universe intelligence (hypothetical) that initiate motion in a vastly existing universe potential with vortical functions that creates aether to consolidate within a vast boundary encompassing the physical universe. However, this would be without any empirical evidence, and therefore I could only make lame excuses that with the UVS model, its purpose should be to evidently show proof that aether exist, and offer comprehensive and logical explanation on how it work, not on how it exist. For this, only nature would know.

IMO, in modern astronomy the Chandra X-ray observatory has evidently captured the existence of aether (aka dark matter) with repeatable results, effectively, this has scientifically debunked the lame Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) that there was no aether wind in its null hypothesis with null result. This could scienfically reinstate the existence of aether that has been lost in natural science for more than one century.

Thanks.

[G_burnett]

They are still as lost as they were; new observations data but based on same old knowledge with moot reasoning.

hi Vincent

I knew it was going to be an "or what" reply and indeed moot reasoning noticed. Almost like the view is there but just denied in mind set ... or job needed.

I have a question for you. At what point of collect of substance do we see the weak force first manifest between the force and the clumping ... the first quanta measurement of dimensional effect.

then the question has to be effect through the electron shell upon the surface of the clump up the line to the shape and massive density of object denied expand.

As each shape getting bigger in mass there is less chance for expand to the set inward ... why becomes the question ... now we can quanta measure based on shape the loss of ability to expand, a reverse of the string increase of D as two globes are formed and the D1 + D2 does not equal the original D1. D1 and D2 clumped (that is a word very distasteful for lack of other used)the decrease in Diameter holds the event out wards expectable from taking place and proof of force into a constant non constant but still constant effect to varied set.

Not to ignore the other forces that may or may not be effect at the time but thus ... to marry gravity to them?

My thought here tonight Enjoy! kind regards g.