Tiny Bits - Momentum in Cosmic Geometry

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Based on this hypothesis, the fundamental mechanism gravity, as how we are experiencing as a pulling force, is the vortical effect of EMF pushing into its vortical center. And evidently, these forces with similiarity of inversed square laws has been scientifically proven. Electromagetic vortex explains the electro stong force is the EMF culmination at the vortex column, and electro weak (gravity) is the force dynamics of accretion disk. The outer plasmatic shell in a spheroidal form with pressure equilibriumis is like an energy bubble, has powerful electrical replusion force around it that stars cluster collected in a vortical reaction are held up in this manner.

Correction:

Instead of "Electromagetic vortex explains the electro stong force is the EMF culmination at the vortex column", it should have been "Electromagetic vortex of a star explains the strong interaction is the EMF culmination at the vortex column"

Apology for the misquotes.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Your Tiny Bits Gravity Model has explained that the sucked effect by gravity is as a result of push towards the center instead, in a manner of momentum culmulation that would form diffused stellar material in plasma state to recollect its entrophy as a consolidated spheroid, I relate that to electrostatic replusion of photon in a plasma shell. Then it was eureka!

Another blunder, should be "electrostatic replusion of electric force between charges" instead of "electrostatic replusion of photon"

[JamesANicholson]

This is an image that could help illustrated the Tiny Bits Cosmic Geometry. Yes! Its bubble clusters, this might illustrate the molecular plasma clusters as energy shells of star cluster in a spiral arm, pardon me if this is not correct or accurate.



And here is the evidence that might support your Tiny Bits force dynamics for gravity as a pushing force, and mechanism for planetary orbiting, as in plasma cosmology for planetary nebula forming into a star with orbiting planets.

Best to you.

Vincent,

The Bubbles * are a great visual depiction of exactly how I would envision "Star cells" to configure. And this is a perfectly logical model when you treat the solar winds as cosmic fine particle/energy pressures. They have to meet and equalize at naturally self correcting "boundaries" just like soap bubble

Wouldn't it be nice to get out to the predicted boundary of our solar system and actually encounter a thickening of resistance like a bubble wall. It could be just so. Or you might only get a significant effect at the midpoint region on direct lines between adjacent stars. Didn't’t someone discover that Voyager was inexplicably slowing down as it approached the edge of our solar system?

There are other experiments that could be set up with lasers focused around a central point, especially on the space station, to test the theory to see if you can actually use light to compress energy back into "matter"
with just geometry.

Say, Vincent, just where do you find all your terrific photos?

I need to study the other connections a bit more before I can make meaningful comments on them.


Do you buy their explanation for the flatness of the solar orbital "disc?" Why not a sphere instead? Or, then, how can we explain all the Spherical shapes for planets and moons and stars??? Why aren't all cosmic structures just discs?


No, what I believe is happening is just a gross averaging of all the directional vector particles/photons. For, if you take every bit of the Tiny Bits coming from all the surrounding directions and average them as vectors you should end up with a single pair of majority directions as the major and minor(opposing)average sets. Even if this is a very subtle majority it should be enough, over time to force a specific orientation as to the plane between the major and minor sets of fine particle Tiny Bit vectors. That will determine the Major orentation. But if there are any "strong" sub-sets, it is certainly Isabel that there could be secondary orientations for at least some of the Planets?

I have several points I want to explore (question) with you, but I can’t keep my eyes open tonight.

How was the chat? Did you take part? I meant to get over there but the timing was not good for me.

Warm Wishes, ‘til later,
Aaron

*Thanks to Vincent Wee-Food for finding the nice Photo of bubbles.
.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Aaron, if you need any pics on natural spheroid or vortex, just give me a shout, no problem and you are most welcome.

Those laser experiments are doable, provide they know what are they looking for. Plasma cosmology is not accepted by the mainstream.

Concerning flatness of the solar orbital "disc?, the governing dynamics is polar vortices pair, some orbits might be tilted from the plane of ecliptic, however, are all disc orbits for more inert entrophy consolidated as spheroids. For non-disc type orbit on a spheroid, it can only apply to lower latitude consolidating vortex on surface of viscous mass. The primary shape for cosmic structures are spheroid and disc, disc shape are in highly excited state usually occurs towards the inner shells in a strong precession. Spheroidal shape objects are in a more inert state, usually occurs at the "valence" outermost invisible plasma shell even if the core is highly excited.

I was too engrossed with your Tiny Bits Gtravity theory, not aware of any chat going on. LOL.

Warmest regards.

Vincent,

The Bubbles * are a great visual depiction of exactly how I would envision "Star cells" to configure. And this is a perfectly logical model when you treat the solar winds as cosmic fine particle/energy pressures. They have to meet and equalize at naturally self correcting "boundaries" just like soap bubble

Wouldn't it be nice to get out to the predicted boundary of our solar system and actually encounter a thickening of resistance like a bubble wall. It could be just so. Or you might only get a significant effect at the midpoint region on direct lines between adjacent stars. Didn't’t someone discover that Voyager was inexplicably slowing down as it approached the edge of our solar system?

There are other experiments that could be set up with lasers focused around a central point, especially on the space station, to test the theory to see if you can actually use light to compress energy back into "matter"
with just geometry.

Say, Vincent, just where do you find all your terrific photos?

I need to study the other connections a bit more before I can make meaningful comments on them.


Do you buy their explanation for the flatness of the solar orbital "disc?" Why not a sphere instead? Or, then, how can we explain all the Spherical shapes for planets and moons and stars??? Why aren't all cosmic structures just discs?


No, what I believe is happening is just a gross averaging of all the directional vector particles/photons. For, if you take every bit of the Tiny Bits coming from all the surrounding directions and average them as vectors you should end up with a single pair of majority directions as the major and minor(opposing)average sets. Even if this is a very subtle majority it should be enough, over time to force a specific orientation as to the plane between the major and minor sets of fine particle Tiny Bit vectors. That will determine the Major orentation. But if there are any "strong" sub-sets, it is certainly Isabel that there could be secondary orientations for at least some of the Planets?

I have several points I want to explore (question) with you, but I can’t keep my eyes open tonight.

How was the chat? Did you take part? I meant to get over there but the timing was not good for me.

Warm Wishes, ‘til later,
Aaron

*Thanks to Vincent Wee-Food for finding the nice Photo of bubbles.
.

[JamesANicholson]

Vincent,

Lots to share and many questions.

Aaron, if you need any pics on natural spheroid or vortex, just give me a shout, no problem and you are most welcome.
----------

That sounds great. I may just have to take you up on that offer. I really would like to collaborate with you. For so many reasons.
----------

Those laser experiments are doable, provide they know what are they looking for. Plasma cosmology is not accepted by the mainstream.
----------

Are you familiar with this web site on Plasma Cosmology? I have sent my Gravity paper to Wal Thornhill, who is one of the main authors of the Electric Universe theory (EV), which is closely connected to Plasma Cosmology.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/


"Concerning flatness of the solar orbital "disc?, the governing dynamics is polar vortices pair, some orbits might be tilted from the plane of ecliptic, however, are all disc orbits for more inert entropy consolidated as spheroids. For non-disc type orbit on a spheroid,

I don't know what you mean by this. Is a "spheroid" mostly solid? Like any one in the range of planets or moons, whether molten or 'hardened' or gaseous? Then, what is an orbit 'on' a spheroid?

it can only apply to lower latitude consolidating vortex on surface of viscous mass.


The primary shape for cosmic structures are spheroid and disc, disc shape are in highly excited state usually occurs to wards the inner shells in a strong precession. Spheroidal shape objects are in a more inert state, usually occurs at the "valence" outermost invisible plasma shell even if the core is highly excited.

If these are the only two shapes--disc being highly excited and Spheroids being the less excited opposite extreme--shouldn't there be a long graduating phase of objects or cosmic structures that are going from one shape to the other as they either speed up or slow down in excitement? Have you come across any photos that might show this occurring. If none is to be found, then they may be caused by different geometric cosmic super-structures.

I was too engrossed with your Tiny Bits Gravity theory, not aware of any chat going on. LOL.

Warmest regards.

------------------

Vincent,

Look at how similar this picture of the Universe is with the bubble picture that you sent to me. You can see the same bubble cell walls, especially the Cosmic bubble junction lines--where the bubbles touch each other and share "edges." I think I need to track down the original source of this photo, though.


I took this off of this site: Plasma Cosmology.net

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

The things in red are things that I need you to clarify for me, if you don't mind. I especially want to know one thing about vortexes, though.

That is: What is the driving mechanism? What familiar force or logical principle is behind them? Where does that originate? What is it made of? This is very key to making your theory clear and putting it on a solid footing. To me it still seems vague and unsupported/undeveloped. Let's work on that for a bit if we can, Okay?

Warmest regards, Aaron

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Aaron,

I answer your most fundamental questions first, not much time for me for today, the other I will go into details asap. Arggg! You must have missed two very important pages from my website.
1. The fundamental of singular vortex mechanism.
2. The hypothetical model of Universal Vortical Singularity.

The page on vortex mechanism was presented in a manner that even a layman can understand the basic singular vortex mechanism. High school student with basic physics background knowing centrifugal and centripetal force has no problem understanding the mechanism in greater details. Therefore I think you must have missed this part, without knowing this section, there are no foundation to any of those stuff you have read from my posts. Do you have any vortex model or setup you can see in any science center near to you, gas or whirlpool observe in 3D by the side view will do, that will help alot for visual understanding on vortical action.

You are absolutely correct that understanding vortex mechanism is the very key, for the rest are just in the details. For you research you might need to explore more thoroughly, studying the UVS model into minute details, ask questions on vortex implicated subjects as you go along and I will show you the answers as clear as I could with as much detail as I can get.

that[/I] originate? What is it made of? This is very key to making your theory clear and putting it on a solid footing. To me it still seems vague and unsupported/undeveloped. Let's work on that for a bit if we can, Okay?

Those filamentary structures image of universe are computer simulated. Therefore instead of sending you such of these, I thought the molecular bubble cluster image was better. Here is another simulated image for plasma cosmology.

Yes I am familiar with that thunderbolt website, wrote to Wal Thornhill but he never replied, registered to his forum and waiting for access approval and only one day later that forum site was shut down. I believe they are very dead beaten after all these years taking the mainstream headon; there were some sites and forum discussion just to throw stones and put fire on them. While I think they got the plasma part of universe correct, there were lots of holes in their explanation for universe phenomena, hence lots of controversial. Also had wrote to other plasma cosmology key personnel including a student of Hannes Alfven, forgotten his name, either no reply or the email bounced with failure notifications. I thought if they have known the self perpetuating aspect of vortical universe then that would be of great help to them. These are the people I will do everything to help revive their work, for Hannes Alfven and for his magnetohydrodynamics theory on plasma cosmology.

Concerning the long graduating phase of objects or cosmic structures that are going from one shape to the other, the cosmic images and evidence are aplenty. Phasing from discs to consolidated elastic spheroids and then diffuse into supernova then back to disc and further consolidate again...... will go into these later, get through with the fundamental of singular vortex mechanism first, this is the utmost for now.

Warmest regards.

Look at how similar this picture of the Universe is with the bubble picture that you sent to me. You can see the same bubble cell walls, especially the Cosmic bubble junction lines--where the bubbles touch each other and share "edges." I think I need to track down the original source of this photo, though.

[JamesANicholson]

Aaron,

I will answer your most fundamental questions first, not much time for me for today, the others I will go into details asap. Arggg! You must have missed two very important pages from my website.
1. The fundamental of singular vortex mechanism.
2. The hypothetical model of Universal Vortical Singularity.

Vincent,

I am re-reading these pages and still scratching my head. My understanding of a vortex is either a swirling body or a region in space where matter or energy are coming together or gathering or being compressed in some way or another.



Let's just look at this first paragraph of your first page above:

"The mechanism works on a principle that a primary vortex has formed on the surface of viscous mass in a suspended spheroid as a result of centrifugal force is exerting consistently from a main axis, it is then subjected to a consistent differential force of another centrifugal force that drives the primary vortex from a secondary axis, the interaction of these centrifugal forces in a geometrical gravity field transforms the primary vortex into a dual-core cyclonic free vortex "


What is a primary vortex? (as different from ordinary ones)

Why does it form just on the surface? Why do vortexes form in general?

Where does the centrifugal force come from?

How is it exerting a consistent force from the main axis?

Is there a force coming from the main axis? What kind of force is it? What is its source? Is it directional? If so, how and Why?

Where does the second axis come from? Is there really a second vortex axis? This needs serious clarification and expansion.

I am not saying that this isn't clear in your mind, but I need something causal and more basic to explain where all these assumptions are coming from.

Warm Wishes, Aaron

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Aaron, thanks for these very searching questions, I would like to thank you for posting these questions that could serve as my learning process, perhaps I could later use this understanding to construct some tutorial pages for singular vortex mechansim.

If you click on the hyperlink for primary vortex in the introdution paragraph for singular vortex mechanism, it will bring you to the following text:
Primary vortex - Refers to a forced vortex that is solely formed by a centrifugal force acting directly from an axis point, or a blind vortex that is formed by a significant force, these type of vortex usually forms as a circular depressed structure with a lowered center on the surface of a viscous mass. Without a sustainable horizontal driving force that developed as centripetal force that circulates in the primary vortex in a center-seeking manner, at the center of this primary vortex it usually could not overcome the cohesion force of molecules in the viscous mass to develop a vortex eye.

There are two types of primary vortex for singular vortex; forced vortex and induced single axis free vortex. They are the basic component of a singular vortex. Put a cup with water on a turntable, spin the table you will get a force vortex, the water can be observed to be receded climbing up the edge of rim and has a paraboblic depressed structure.

Stir the water with a spoon, you will get an induced free vortex with a funnel shape depressed structure, a blind one though; this is the other primary vortex. I suggest you should carry out these simple experiments to feel and understand the vortical movement, then read the Wikipedia description on these two types of vortex and their characteristics.

Natural science has to be learnt by bringing the subject to conciousness, you have to feel it, participate in it, dance and interacts with it, becomes oneness with it by imersing in it; merely reading about it and understanding it intellectually does not suffice. The key is to to find ways to interact with it, just my two cents worth.

Let's just look at this first paragraph of your first page above:

"The mechanism works on a principle that a primary vortex has formed on the surface of viscous mass in a suspended spheroid as a result of centrifugal force is exerting consistently from a main axis, it is then subjected to a consistent differential force of another centrifugal force that drives the primary vortex from a secondary axis, the interaction of these centrifugal forces in a geometrical gravity field transforms the primary vortex into a dual-core cyclonic free vortex "


What is a primary vortex? (as different from ordinary ones)

Pressure gradient on the surface is the smallest, it reality the inertial force interaction goes all the way from core to the surface, but this force manifested from the core will begin to express on the level with least resistance, i.e. on the surface and the angular momentum is also amplified the most there with the force most dilated there. The pressure gradient follows inverse-square laws, therefore free vortex is a funnel shape, forms in a top down manner by inertial force extending from the core upward to surface.

Vortices forms generally in viscous mass to dilate the conserved momentum of an inertial force, is the most efficient distribution model for force dynamics, mechanical and electromagnetic force alike.

Why does it form just on the surface? Why do vortexes form in general?

For the following question, click on the hyperlink of summary section of singular vortex mechanism relates by polar vortex. Read the polar vortex section for detailed description that also explained an associated paradoxical illusion.

Not relating to how the centrifugal foce initially has come to its presence, any rotating mass, be it a suspending rotating spheroid or a top, a conistence centrifugal force is always exerting from the rotation axis outwardly and cyclonically. This is the main axis of singular vortex for a polar vortex.

For a polar vortex, the secondary axis of the singular vortex comes from the revolving axis. See the wobbling spheroid animation, focus on the smaller grey spheroid that is revolving around the bigger blue spheroid, this revolving axis is an external axis where a differential tangential force will drive the primary polar vortex; is the secondary axis of singular vortex for polar vortex. For lower latitude singular vortex, the main and secondary axis differs from polar vortex.

And be absolutely clear on this point: the singular vortex mechanism refers to the wobbling spheroid in precession, not the singular vortex induced.



As to where the source of this force is from, do this experiment to understand the precession effect:

Spin a gyroscope and clasp it in your hands, gently rotate and rock it, the force dynamics of precession in this manner can be brought to your conciousness. Imagine your hands are viscous mass wrapping around it, then imagine the force dynamics interactions and amplified on lighter weight density viscous mass, magnify it with imagination if you can. Do a paradigm shift upward that's how those vortices in cosmics has spawned in viscous mass, then a paradigm shift downward it would be how those atomic matters has functioned, albeit the intertia force is of different state in electromagnetic interactions, but has the same working principle.

Where does the centrifugal force come from?

How is it exerting a consistent force from the main axis?

Is there a force coming from the main axis? What kind of force is it? What is its source? Is it directional? If so, how and Why?

Where does the second axis come from? Is there really a second vortex axis? This needs serious clarification and expansion.

I am not saying that this isn't clear in your mind, but I need something causal and more basic to explain where all these assumptions are coming from.

Warm Wishes, Aaron

After this round if you are still not clear on any of those questions raised, please do not hesistate to ask again, even if the question is exactly the same, I will then try to measure up the answer from another angle that could be more suitable for your queries, and please be assured that I will not let up on you. So by all means please.

Warmest regards,

[JamesANicholson]

Spin a gyroscope and clasp it in your hands, gently rotate and rock it, the force dynamics of precession in this manner can be brought to your consciousness. Imagine your hands are viscous mass wrapping around it, then imagine the force dynamics interactions and amplified on lighter weight density viscous mass, magnify it with imagination if you can. Do a paradigm shift upward that's how those vorticies in comics has spawned in viscous mass, then a paradigm shift downward it would be how those atomic matters has functioned, albeit the inertia force is of different state in electromagnetic interactions, but has the same working principle.



Okay Vincent,

I am going over your descriptions in a lot more detail and clicking on many of your links and references to try to make myself more familiar with what it is that you are trying to propose with your vorticies.

Maybe this will help clarify my questions.
I used to play with a gyroscope as a child all the time, so I am very familiar with the feel etc. of the effects of angular momentum of a spinning object/system. My question to you is: What initiating force replaces the string pull that you manually/artificially have to supply to set the gyroscope in motion to achieve the resultant effect of the angular momentum after it is in motion? I am hoping to lead you to the idea that the driving force for all vorticies has to be coming from the movement of an outside force, namely the same force that causes gravity in my theory--the force of massive amounts of photons and other high energy particles moving in accord with a cosmic geometry, resulting in areas in space and on planet surfaces and at galactic centers where these energies are being "forced" together by the unavoidable angles at which these energies are coming together in a balanced manner. The shape of this coming together is inevitably circular and spherical, therefore vortical. I just don't see any evidence for a void being the "cause" for vortexes or vorticies. That was my point.


I just know that we can do better than using "nothingness" and "fictitious" and even zero point energy as the foundation stones for a solid theory. I want to go in the other direction from an Uncertainty Theory to a Theory based on real intuitive logical forces that people can easily relate to like photonic vectors--individual packets of real transferable momentum. Vortexes certainly are involved--that is obvious, but when you look at them in motion the movement is always from the outside coming in to the center.

There is a compression that takes place, in fact several kinds of compression that can take place at the center of vorticies that determine what kind of a vortex will result at that particular location. But I contend that they are all determined and caused by forces and "pressures" outside of the location where the vortex forms in order to satisfy (equalize) those forces and pressures that are coming into contact with each other at that particular location in the three dimensional geometry of space or on the two dimensional surfaces of planets or spheroids even as atoms and electrons.



After this round if you are still not clear on any of those questions raised, please do not hesitate to ask again, even if the question is exactly the same, I will then try to measure up the answer from another angle that could be more suitable for your queries, and please be assured that I will not let up on you. So by all means please.

Warmest regards,

--VINCENT


Thank you for this promise to hang in there with me, and let me extend the same offer in friendship in return, to you, my friend.

Most pleasant wishes, Aaron

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

--VINCENT
Thank you for this promise to hang in there with me, and let me extend the same offer in friendship in return, to you, my friend.
Most pleasant wishes, Aaron

Thanks for your effort Aaron, we shall hang in on the concerned issues and eventually get through with it.

While you are going over the UVS descriptions in a lot more detail, I hope the following clarification would help:

- Void is never the cause that forms singular vortex.

- Zero point energy is never the source that forms singular vortex, or mentioned at all.

- Fictitious force is just a choice word instead of inertial force for a key topic involved; paradoxical effect. There are real transferable momentum involved, the underlying vectors that drives the vortex did not come from nothing; in paradoxes they are hidden in nothingness. Gravity, centrifugal force, centripetal force and precession effect are all fictitious forces, these are scientific physical interaction forces.

- The driving force for all vorticies does come from the movement of outside forces.

- The compression that took place for singular vortex based on UVS is an effect, not the cause, it is the effect of centrifugal force that has warped the surface of viscous mass, therefore the counter balance effect by the center seeking centripetal force that has acted as a compression force in a vortical manner. This is how singular vortex based on UVS is governed.

It has always been my objective that the UVS theory has to be based on real intuitive logical forces, and is intended to be this way through understanding of the paradoxical effect. However the subjects dealt with by UVS are very paradoxical, the ideas are not very difficult to understand but are very tricky that defies intuition. That's the situation unfortunately.

Fundamental forces of nature can be expressed in many manners, and I do think your theory on Tiny Bits - Momentum in Cosmic Geometry can explain it very well eventually. Some day UVS might also be expressed by your theorem and the force dynamics would also be compatible that could express more entirely, and vice-versa.

Best regards,