The Universal Vortical Singularity

[SteveA]

...
SteaveA, recently the Victoria news in BC here reported a story of political nature Sage responded to with fact of what we have in a provincial party called the NDP that from experience noted in my comment how much of a devastating group they are getting into power, a gang, commie pinkos one and all that when they were in last established social control programs of administrative nature outside rule of law that resulted in over 1200 deaths of children in five years and not one accounted for by those in charge of them. ... I was in quickly in two posts called an idiot and a no brain but I did the only possible respond ... I said thank you to them for the clarity of there subscription ..

Kind regards g.

The sad part is that it appears that what it takes to get into power. The "good guys" are generally at a disadvantage because they don't even want to run the show.

Maybe we have to enslave good people and make them take public office? I'm just kidding ... if we manage to reduce the power and influence that government has then it will attract fewer problems I think (and let people get back to their lives - I stopped following the news years ago because half of it is propoganda).

[G_burnett]

good idea SteaveA, it would be a vortex in effect for sure g

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Just woke up, so if I've got your meaning wrong, we'll come back around and try again, lol.

Hi Lorrina,

Its good that we always make provision that we might be not correct in the findings and interpretation for any issue in our exploration so we can take a step backward for re-examination of the associated belief. This would enable us to pyschologically venture far to freely explore an issue of interest without rigid entrenchment.

Your refreshing statement in a simply put and light manner had echoed what Richard Feynman had strongly emphasized. This is not what most people, especially the experts are practicing, giving themselves no room for U-turn in their beliefs when they are facing the prospect that suggest their foundation could be wrong. They could only become denial to the challenging prospect, least to accepting it in their worst fear and plainly refuse to objectively entertain the contradicting idea at all, refuting it with lame reasoning and bury it for good from anyone else if they could.

In the paradox of existence, lies the balance, IMHO.

Nature is not counterintuitive to my perspective, rather it is we who have lost confidence and become counterintuitive to nature.

Nature seems not counterintuitive is merely an apparent effect.

If one held the belief that what he sees is what it is, the more confidence he has in it would untimately lead to a pitfall as huge to lose all his confidence he have through that belief.

We seem to have "lost our place", if we ever had it, and most experience an innate yearning to know, to return to, a place or state of mind that satisfies this sensation.

We are seekers all, even those who deny.

Through logic or intuition, singly and collectively, we seek outward and inward. Some search their hearts, while others search the heavens.

Not to change the subject, because I feel it is related to same, but why does our brain have two lobes, that to our understanding to date, attempts to balance our logic and intuition?

I will need to mull over these.

There is a whole universe between the ears of each of us, and the wonder is that no two are exactly the same, as we are changing with each passing moment. (On, no! It seems impossible to write a reply without some reference to that which we term 'Time'.)

I am not the same person, precisely, as I was just mere minutes ago, for in the experiencing of your comments and my reply, the paradox of just who I am and, why am I here has been slightly resolved.

We are each, the sum of our experiences.The universe is the collective sum of all that and more, for I suspect that the human race has much more to experience, whether we assimilate anything from the journey, or not.

Meanwhile, life is never boring. Everywhere one turns their mind, there are questions to explore. Rather funny how they all circle back to the point in the end, but.......which point of the circle is the starting point?

Better end here before I am entangled in the vortex of my own mind, lol,

Regards,

Lorrina

TY for sharing this and it is well expressed.

Best regards,
vincent

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Right but the Big Bang perfectly predicts the CMB..

Any phenomenon can technically be perfectly predicted quantitatively by self-referencing in mathematical construct and deduced to be valid analytically; it might not be the reality of nature. Predictions of such in isolated manners disregarding the associated anomalies are merely analytical truth developed in a direction based on its assumptions. The fundamental assumptions that render the foundation of a hypothesis have to be carefully investigated; ignoring this could lead to illusion of knowledge and conclusion of false facts.

Any conclusion extrapolated from a belief system based on false fact (such as the flat world model) would be fallacious. From the UVS perspective, expanding of space in the BB model is logically invalid, this suggests that the physical universe did not expand from a dense hot ball at all.

Edison technically know how to make a light bulb lit by direct current and can always quantitatively predict it correctly and accurately in mathematical construct, but he said in an interview he did not know what exactly was the underlying mechanism in electricity flow that had made his invention work in applied science; he knew what he did not know.

Knowing how to quantitatively predict it to work is one issue, knowing how it fundamentally works is another issue.

Successful quantitatively prediction of the CMB phenomenon does not prove the basic BB hypothesis absolutely.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

More so, if we have an anomoly. Theories are much like pie crusts, they are made to be broken.

The theory we cannot break, will prove to be the T.O.E.

A wrong theory guarded by strong authoritarians can be unbreakable as long as they are in force. On the other hand, a correct theory slammed by strong authoritarians can be easily crushed like a pie as long as these authoritarians keeps the gates.

History tells us that some important wrong theories that propositioned false facts had withheld for more than two millenniums.

Pythagoras had established that Earth is a spheroid about 2,500 years ago, yet this correct fact was crushed like a pie by the later authority. Geocentrism and all its extrapolated theories are other such incorrect theory that had propositioned false facts.

William Carpenter (1830-1896) published "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" based on his consistence description logics and reasoning that were supported with direct observations as evidence on Earth is not a Globe. Galileo might not have had understood those ancient navigation techniques in fine details than a skipper who had adopted the belief that Earth is flat, thus in critiques with description logics against the spheroidal Earth postulation in a rhetorical manner, it was refuted by these experts whom were in the field of navigation with such applied science; Galileo's spheroidal Earth model in such manners were deliberated as nonsensical by the authority during the flat Earth era.

Galileo did not live to see the general recognition of his spheroidal Earth theory. He was impeded by the authority and ended up in house arrest for life, and our Earth remained flat for another several hundred of years until the Newtonian authority had risen into power and endorsed that Earth is a spheroid. Yet the Newtonian authority themselves withheld many other false facts and systematically suppressed anyone with theory that could challenge their authority.

[labelwench]

Knowing how to quantitatively predict it to work is one issue, knowing how it fundamentally works is another issue.
Originally by Vincent Wee-Foo

The above statement describes the base that I endeavor to work from.

Observable patterns and predictably repeatable fundamentals have served me well, applied from the ideology of treat others as you would have them treat you.

Theories delight me, some more so than others, yet all are entertained until they rise or fall under the stringent tests of time.

Carry on gentlemen, your exchange of ideas is respectful and interesting.......

[Wick]

Galileo did not live to see the general recognition of his spheroidal Earth theory. He was impeded by the authority and ended up in house arrest for life, and our Earth remained flat for another several hundred of years until the Newtonian authority had risen into power and endorsed that Earth is a spheroid. Yet the Newtonian authority themselves withheld many other false facts and systematically suppressed anyone with theory that could challenge their authority.

Galileo never presented a theory of a spherical earth. That idea was old hat by the time Galileo came around. Galileo was actual put under house arrest for defending the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Copernicus opined in the early 1500’s that the earth (a sphere) moved around the sun (a sphere).

Prior to Copernicus, the dominate theory was the one put forward by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD, which we now call the geocentric theory. This theory suggested that the earth (a sphere at rest in space) was surrounded by a series of nesting cosmic crystal spheres. The sun, moon, planets and stars were thought to be attached to these monstrously large crystal spheres (one sphere for each heavenly body). The outermost sphere was the Dome of Fixed Stars. Ptolemy’s ancient system was a sphere based system.

There is a wide-held belief among us modern folks that the doctrine of a flat earth was held widely until the time of Columbus. This simply isn’t true. Mankind at large has known the earth was spherical since the times of ancient Greece. In science we never really strayed from that position. The public at large may have strayed into a flat earth belief, but the scientific (and even religious) community did not. The question has always been is the sphere of earth moving or at rest.

Thomas L. Friedman didn’t help things when he suggested in his book, The Earth is Flat, published in April 2005, that people in the Middle Ages believed the myth of the flat earth. For Mr. Friedman to refer to this myth was useful to his topic (globalization) but he was in error when he suggested that the flat earth myth was widely held by humankind prior to Columbus. It was not.

Sorry for the long point of correction, but these theories are near and dear to my heart and I wouldn’t want the early Greeks, Ptolemy or Copernicus (who lived long before Galileo) to lose their part in establish the fact that the earth is a spheroid. What’s more I think the question of whether the earth moves or not is very a propos to the TOE. In Resting Light Theory we purport that the universe moves through 4-space in the same way the earth moves through 3-space. We also demolish the so-called dimension of time.

As for me, I am under a self imposed house arrest in the Resting Light Theory thread. Visitors are welcome!!! I do escape from time to time (as now) but I generally return to what I love most…Resting Light Theory (RLT).


I'm enjoying your thread Vincent. Thanks for your thoughts!!

Regards!

Wick

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Greeting Wick, welcome to our world of vortex.

Galileo never presented a theory of a spherical earth. That idea was old hat by the time Galileo came around.

You are categorically correct that spherical Earth is not Galileo's theory. However, in modern science, Galileo has a special place for his proposition on spherical Earth concept with this astronomical discovery through telescope; he is the one who had scientifically nailed it. After all, Galileo did propoistioned spherical model and further it with his own touch. This is very distinct from his predecessors, hence I referred his presentation of Earth is a globe as "Galileo's spheroidal Earth theory" to mark his immutable milestone contribution.

Galileo was actual put under house arrest for defending the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Copernicus opined in the early 1500’s that the earth (a sphere) moved around the sun (a sphere).

There are many versions from different parties saying the reason why he was put under house arrest. Generally, the evolutionists said spheroidal Earth theory was among the main causes, other said it was his publicizing on heresy of heliocentrism, some said it was the irritating behaviour of Galileo, recently an official source said he was charged because of his "opposed to the Holy scripts" by altering some of its official interpretation.

Prior to Copernicus, the dominate theory was the one put forward by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD, which we now call the geocentric theory. This theory suggested that the earth (a sphere at rest in space) was surrounded by a series of nesting cosmic crystal spheres. The sun, moon, planets and stars were thought to be attached to these monstrously large crystal spheres (one sphere for each heavenly body). The outermost sphere was the Dome of Fixed Stars. Ptolemy’s ancient system was a sphere based system.

What you have mentioned above is correct. Nonetheless, the sphere based system went back to as far as 6th century AD, posited by Pythagoras. In ancient Greece the flat Earth concept swing in and out of favor in between until the authority of Aristotle endorsement on spherical Earth. But this does not cover other cultures in other parts of the world whom have had conceptions of a flat Earth.

There is a wide-held belief among us modern folks that the doctrine of a flat earth was held widely until the time of Columbus. This simply isn’t true. Mankind at large has known the earth was spherical since the times of ancient Greece. In science we never really strayed from that position. The public at large may have strayed into a flat earth belief, but the scientific (and even religious) community did not. The question has always been is the sphere of earth moving or at rest.

The above arguments were probably put forth by the creationists and/or the concerned religion party, they claimed evolutionists fabricated the myth in 19th century to discredit the concerned religious organisation. Nevertheless, evolutionists forwarded the evidence of "The Flat-Earth Bible" to support their charge with reasonable arguments on the suppression by concerned authority that seems to be more credible.

Since heliocentrism is a credible model and as part and parcel of it Galileo was prosecuted by the authority, I tend to lean towards the evolutionists. In history it was known that evolutionists as a whole were systematically suppressed by the authority. I find it hard to absorb the official statements/version published at hindsight after the issues were scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubts. I do not rule out it was the other party who are fabricating facts instead to downplay their historical posits, with a suspicious motive to win back the lost credibility from their followers in what appears to be some tap dancing maneuvers in a denial act. I need to clarify I am a neutral party not particularly in favor of evolutionism nor is against creationism.

After all, geocentrism was an incorrect model and this two millennium old fallacy was sacredly held by the concerned religious party officially until October, 1992. They had suppressed opposing views and there was no credible excuse for this.

Thomas L. Friedman didn’t help things when he suggested in his book, The Earth is Flat, published in April 2005, that people in the Middle Ages believed the myth of the flat earth. For Mr. Friedman to refer to this myth was useful to his topic (globalization) but he was in error when he suggested that the flat earth myth was widely held by humankind prior to Columbus. It was not.

The above refute is more like it was the bias views from creationism or the concerned religious organization; what was mentioned officially by a party with interest in their agenda and what had actually happened in history can be very different.

Sorry for the long point of correction, but these theories are near and dear to my heart and I wouldn’t want the early Greeks, Ptolemy or Copernicus (who lived long before Galileo) to lose their part in establish the fact that the earth is a spheroid. What’s more I think the question of whether the earth moves or not is very a propos to the TOE. In Resting Light Theory we purport that the universe moves through 4-space in the same way the earth moves through 3-space. We also demolish the so-called dimension of time.

The discussion with Lorrina was focused on suppression of alternative views that were against the authority dogmas; the subject was not on the exactness of the flat Earth issue. Galileo was singled out in the discussion because he was famously prosecuted for some simple truths he dared to bring out to the world and he was instrumental of it.

The predecessors for spherical Earth concept were not left out and you can find many of them mentioned in my web site on "A flat Earth event", and "Ancient concepts of cyclical universe". See also "From cosmic whirl to vortices".

As for me, I am under a self imposed house arrest in the Resting Light Theory thread. Visitors are welcome!!! I do escape from time to time (as now) but I generally return to what I love most…Resting Light Theory (RLT).

From time to time I did visit your thread, mulled over some issues, did not intrude for not wanting to affect your evolving ideas with premature enquiries. On your friendly gestures I will later poke-in to explore your RLT further.

I'm enjoying your thread Vincent. Thanks for your thoughts!!

Regards!

Wick

I am glad you did.

Best to you,
vincent

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Let me elaborate how Galileo was instrumental and contributed to heliocentrism.

"Galileo was the first to examine its unique characteristics. Galileo found that each pendulum has a constant period. The period is the time in which a pendulum completes a single oscillation, i.e., returns to the position it was in at the beginning of the period. For example: The time required for the pendulum to move from its most extreme right position back to that point. The pendulum passes twice through the arc during each period." - Excerpt from "The pendulum".


The above Foucault pendulum simulation demonstrates the oscillation and passes twice through the arc during each period.

Many failed to repeat Galileo's pendulum experiments, it was until physicist Léon Foucault presented this pendulum experiment in 1851.

"In 1851 it was well known that Earth rotated: observational evidence included Earth's measured polar flattening and equatorial bulge. However, Foucault's pendulum was the first dynamic proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment, and it created a sensation in the academic world and society at large." - Excerpt from "Foucault pendulum".

The pendulum experiment implies that there has been exchange of momentum. Through conservation of angular momentum the Earth in rotating motion and the suspended pendulum bob precessing in oscillation have exchanged momentum.

This is the first immutable scientific proof that Earth is in perpetual rotating motion.

Frame dragging effect in Einstein's theory of relativity was dismissed by scientific consensus in favor of Coriolis effect. Gravity Probe-B experiment was still not successful in proving the frame-dragging effect by the time its budget has run out and its plug pulled.



UVS solved a cognitive paradox of the oscillating motion of the pendulum precession cycle and illustrated a differential rotation, it demonstrates a cyclonic motion (This is shown in the above animation on right, the left animation is the pendulum's bob path in a rotating reference frame.) experienced by the suspended bob in an inertial reference frame. This is an immutable qualitative proof for the frame-dragging effect in general relativity.

For details see a UVS topic on "Visualization of differential rotation with Foucault's pendulum".

Galileo with his telescope discoveries and pendulum experiments was not merely wearing an old hat on the ideas of spherical Earth and heliocentrism.

[G_burnett]

Hi Vincent

Mind is working over time i see... hmmm? good for you.

I ponder what the pendulum would do where the Sat Hex is showing ...

...I did for a little while lol.

Kind regards graham