ja7tdo wrote:hi, Catonic
Thank you for your comment.
How can you do that swirl?
Scientific theory needs to be assembled from fundamental phenomena. If you can make a swirl, you should explain its mechanism and explain the existing phenomenon. It is important not only to explain one phenomenon but also to investigate how many phenomena occurring in nature are related to that theory.
Natural phenomena are related to each other, there is nothing useless.
In relation to your original post in this thread, here are some concepts which may help or may make matters worse, in terms of spreading confusion.
Tesla stated that:
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest
importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time
without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be
expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
other than that received from the environment.” – Nikola Tesla
Once again this indicates a vortex model of matter in which the energy of an atom is like the energy of a tornado: a localization of the energy of a larger system.
Various other quotes attributed to Tesla (of less-reliable / unknown source):
"A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named, universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another."
"We wrongly call this phenomenon gravitation."
"We can also feel ether's reaction when sudden acceleration or braking."
"The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense."
https://www.quora.com/What-did-Nikola-T ... the-aether
Now, no doubt somewhat simplistically, we can say that the ether is plasma, Birkeland currents, electric currents magnetism, electro-magnetism etc in space.
EU theory says that stars and planets are formed in "pinches" or compression points in Birkeland currents. Compression in one part of space has it's counterpart in less compression or "density" in another part. Magnets have both attraction and repulsion.
Putting everything together and adding in some resonance and harmonics and some dissonance and inertia or the neutral part of a magnet between the positive and negative poles we have the potential for a complete theory.
For example, the toroidal movement of galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets relates to the toroidal movement of tornadoes, weather systems, whirlpools, magnetic lines of force, the movement of electrons etc etc etc. We can see the common patterns and how they scale.
Hence the picture by Ken Wheeler that I posted above. Looking at things correctly and truthfully and scientifically we start to see the connections, the repeating patterns, the logical consistencies, the underlying truths.
Another example, Gerald Pollack's work with EZ water. Once again, electric forces are at work, tying everything together if we are able to see enough parts of the big picture.
Once we get that basically right we can start to fill in the inevitable gaps.
Anyway, we certainly need to think for ourselves and make sure that our theories hold up (are consistent and logical) at both the micro (atomic) level and at the macro (general or universe) level.
The mistakes that others made in the past can or should act as a warning or guide to not keep making those same mistakes, for example, losing sight of the role of repulsion as you say.
This has not happened of course as the mistakes of Newtonian gravity and Einstein's space-time have not been recognized as mistakes except by a few, such as the EU people.
If we start to get the fundamentals right we can see that science is not that hard or complicated as the current hodge podge of Newtonian-Einsteinian-Quantum-Cosmological absurd mess leads us to believe.
Anyone who is making the effort to think for themselves is way ahead of those who accept such patent nonsense, imo.