Next on the list is a genuine APM article with the impressive title:
The model of Universal Vortical Singularity
http://www.singularvortex.com/WFE%20-%2 ... larity.htm
If you do not have the patience to read all my critique you can skip straight to the "Executive Summary" at the bottom and read, in concise format, why this theory fails.
If you are familiar with concepts like angular momentum, inertia, and the properties of gyroscopes just skip down to "the first sentence is:"
For the non-technical oriented or just generally unfamiliar reader here is an explanation of some of the basic mechanics of the theory:
The theory is primarily predicated on the properties of gyroscopes, specifically what they call a "suspended spheroid", which is simply a squeezed ball with a rod through the center with one of the ends of the rod attached to a string (suspended). Perhaps there is not a rod but rather the string is simply attached directly the spheroid, I'm not 100% certain on this precise detail. In any event a particular phenomenon of this object that forms the "fundamental inertial force interactions" of the theory is torque-free precession. This is a phenomenon observed when an object rotates about a non-symmetric axis. For the visual and hands-on types, this is easy to understand, perform the following experiment at home:
Pick up a fairly regular, well balanced stick and toss it at a large angle with a nice flick of your wrist as if you wanted to give it a good spin. You will see that it spins in a fairly regular, homogeneous fashion. Take a hunk of lead or other heavy object and fasten it to one end of the stick. Now repeat the same motion. You will notice the stick performs little "jumps" as it careens through the air, its spinning is not regular and uniform as before. The weight you fastened threw off the stick's symmetry. Though it may look pretty amazing, it is easily explained by carefully applying the basic physical law of motion conservation.
In the case of the spheroid you can try to do this with a football, which is essentiailly to an elliptical spheroid. It may take a few tries but you should be able to see the "wobbly jump" associated with torque-free precession by grabbing the football by one edge and throwing it at a wide angle with a nice flick of your wrist. Again, the phenomenon you see is purely due to the basic physics of motion conservation (specifically constant angular momentum).
There, now anyone can visualize what they're talking about. We're looking at something like a football with a string attached off-center that is spinning around in some "off kilter" way like the weighted stick. Some fundamental questions are, what is the string itself attached to? What is the football spinning with respect to? What is the football made of?
The first sentence is:
This is the fundamental foundation of a clockwork universe that sets everything in unisonal perpetual motion, as a perfect machine with its gears governed by the laws of physics.
I'm following so far. Among the fundamental laws of physics are conservation of motion and matter. As I know these concepts, this is logical. This theory starts out on sound footing.
Universal Vortical Singularity is categorically a theory of everything in a single model with a concept of nothingness that begets infinities and infinitesimals.
The "concept of nothingness" is just that, a concept. It involves looking at an apple then looking at no apple. Something and nothing. The author claims that nothingness "begets infinities and infinitesimals". If nothing is a concept how can it do anything? My basketball bounces. I punch you in the nose. Does ingratitude punch you in the nose? No, the ingracious PERSON punches you in the nose. Furthermore, how can a concept do anything to other concepts (infinity and infinitesimal)!? Does ingratitude punch insolence!? NO, an ungracious PERSON punches an insolent PERSON. Some do not care about consistent language but this kind of mangling makes it meaningless. The author attempts to define infinity and infinitesimal:
infinities - The manifold of infinity; manifold of increases without bound
infinitesimals - The manifold of infinitesimal; manifold of decreases to indefinitely small that are immeasurable
But what is manifold? Besides using an undefined term in the definition of an undefined term, the author cannot even communicate clearly at all. "Increase" is a verb and may only be modified by an adverb. A concept can increase incessantly but not "boundlessly". Boundless is predicated on the word "bound" which means a shape, a contour, a definite border. The author is trying to assign shape to that which he has plainly tried to define as a concept. Such basic and elementary logical blunders make the entire presentation meaningless.
Maybe it gets better? Maybe we should skip straight ahead to "Universal vortex is..."??? A sentence that starts that way should be plain, unambiguous, and edifying:
Unisonal vortex is a nothingness of warped surface in the form of void that emerges on the surface of viscous matter, it primarily wobbles in a two-axis spin in a suspended spheroid.
If you thought my original objections were "grammatical" or "semantic" just read this sentence. Read the first five words. The first 13 are even better. Now, the word "is" means "to be" i.e. to exist. "Unisonal vortex" is plainly something that exists here, both explicitly in how the sentence is written and implicitly in the fact that the article's title bears the name. The author is most definitely telling us that the universal vortex exists. Now, "nothingness" is the opposite of "to be", it means "not to be" or "not to exist". SomeTHING or noTHING. The author is essentially saying:
"Unisonal vortex exists as a nonexistent..."
Of course the author does not use explicit antonyms or everyone would laugh. He uses the fashionable term "nothingness" that appeals a bit more to the imagination. Do not be fooled by what is on the surface.
Not only does the author describe his unisonal vortex using antonyms, he then claims it is part of an existent, a "warped surface in the form of void". Under the common definition of surface "exterior of an object" and the common definition of void is "nothing". Some of its synonyms are "vacant, vacuous, bereft, unfilled, unoccupied, devoid... etc." The all indicate a lack, as in not something or "nothing". The author is saying:
"A Unisonal vortex exists as a nonexistent of the warped exterior in the form of nothing..."
Even more concise:
"Something is and is not part of something that is also nothing..."
This is more contradictory than George Busch or the Bible. I've not had to refute a theory on such basic, laughable, and elementary grounds since I debated Creationism.
The universal vortical system with unisonal vortex mechanism is the principle of the fundamental inertial force interactions in a torque-free precession that forms unisonal vortex in viscous matter on a suspended spheroid...
So, the mechanism of the something-that-is-nothing together with a related system (left largely undefined and unexplained) is the primary way that interactions in a torque-free precession form a "unisonal vortex" in "viscous matter". What can "viscous" possibly mean in this context? Viscosity is a useful parameter assigned to a fluid in analyzing fluid transport in pipes/plumbing. It describes the observation that some fluids flow easily through a pipe and some do not. This is because the constituents of the fluid near the pipe move more slowly than constituents in the center of the pipe. The slower motion is because the constituents near the pipe interact strongly with the pipe. One might understand it as a type of friction for the sake of using a familiar term, though friction is pretty subjective and varies in definition according to one's technical background and inclination. Are the authors talking about the interaction of matter with itself when they say "viscous matter"? Have they even defined matter or viscosity? We can't be sure what the author means.
Near as I can tell, at the end of the day there are interactions between, I presume, "unisonal vortices" to produce more unisonal vortices. So interactions among A produce A? It's not 100% clear because the "universal vortical system" was explained as both something and nothing so I'm not sure if these "vortices" are something or not. They certainly were not defined although the author attempts an illustration:
http://www.singularvortex.com/pictures/ ... 3_anti.jpg
The illustration alone doesn't make it clear why the interaction among these things would create more of them.
In any event, near as I can tell, A's interact to produce more A's on the surface of a suspended spheroid and they're all embedded in "viscous matter". I wonder if the vortices themselves are "in viscous matter" or "composed of viscious matter". It's all hard to tell. Continued:
...that in isotropy has potential density consolidated in volumetric pressure. This torque-free precession that drives a unisonal vortex in viscous matter is driven externally by a larger vortical mechanism that causes a torque-induced precession on the suspended spheroid.
Isotropic simply means uniformity in each direction. Potential density is the amount of matter that would be present in a region of space of volume Va if the equivalent amount of matter in a different region of space (volume Vb) were compressed/expanded to Va without interaction with the environment (adiabatically). Obviously it is a concept, specifically it is a thermodynamic concept that makes many calculations convenient because of the simplifying assumptions
of no mass transfer and no motion transfer (isolated system). This assumption is only true when working on the scale of the entire universe. They appear to be talking about a "single spheroid" and certainly they also say "viscous matter" instead of "all matter". They do not appear to be working on the scale of the entire universe. Also, apparently this mathematical/thermodynamic conceptual construct is "consolidated" inside another thermodynamic concept "volumetric pressure". What on earth can this possibly mean? I cannot even pursue such a line of thought because the authors have not defined universe and are trying to compress concepts inside other concepts. If they had at least defined "universe" from the outset I could be certain if they were proposing that this suspended spheroid was the entire universe or if they are simply using potential density and volumetric pressure as simplifying assumptions.
The spinning movements of a suspended spheroid in its rotation on a revolving path would exert consistence fictitious forces on its body in a precession effect, and through conservation of angular momentum
Fictitious forces? Do we need to even read any further? To everyone I know "fictitious" means "imaginary, not real, nonexistent, fake...". What can fictitious possibly mean in this article? Again they do not define it so the reader is left wondering what in the world they are talking about. At best they have completely bungled their effort to communicate their theory. At worst they are simply assuming you will "take their word for it" that they "really mean something real" because telling you what they are thinking in clear terms would expose them for charlatans (wait didn't they already manage that with something is nothing is something made of nothing on something?). Continued:
... these inertial forces affect viscous matter on a whole mass of the wobbling spheroid is dilated from the core towards the surface, are then amplified enormously on lower density viscous matter layers...
At least one thing is clear from this is that the spheroid is not a continuous object, it is composed of smaller objects. While this was alluded to before, the language was so mangled one could not be sure. However they do not address these more fundamental parts at all! They keep throwing around the word "vortices" but they do not define it and, in common usage, a vortex is what something does and not a something. But this is a TOE! What TOE would not enlighten us on the fundamental constituent of matter? Is it a ball, a rod, a rope, a gyroscope? I want to know about those "viscous matter layers" in the spheroid! What GUT physicist completely evades the question "what is everything made of"? Continued:
...that initiates the fromation of unisonal vortex paradoxically by opening the vortex eye and forms the vortex column in a top-down manner from the surface pushing towards its core.
Fromation is a term that I am not familiar with, though I assume it means "create" or "bring forth". It's certainly not in the dictionary. Again the authors do not bother to tell you what it means. However the more fundamental problem is that the propagation of this dilation from the inner part of the spheroid does something "paradoxically". A paradox is a self contradiction. The dilation does something it cannot or should not do? Can A be both A and not A? What's the vortex eye? What's a vortex column? What is all this jargon? Why would the surface push down toward the core? It was the core that was dilating/expanding toward the surface wasn't it? I suspect the answer is contained in the mass of jargon they use to veil their meaning so that nobody can point out all the fatal flaws in their theory. Do not be swayed by technical, sensational, or scientific sounding language. Do not just assume they are right.
The viscous matter in layers on the suspended spheroid has varying potential density in volumetric pressure that are naturally segregated, mechanically or electromagnetically, governed by their inverse-square laws progressively in the state of molten matter, liquid, gas and plasma.
Hmm, I think that, by this point, I have reason enough to believe that this suspended spheroid actually IS the universe in their theory. It purportedly contains the observed "states" of matter. Plus they are invoking the assumptions of an isolated system. In this case what they are saying makes a little bit of sense. However, what's around the spheroid? What's it suspended from and where does the thread that suspends it go? What is the spheroid actually made of
? What is it spinning with respect to? If the universe is "everything that exists" then it certainly cannot spin with respect to anything else! "Anything else" is outside the universe and doesn't exist by definition! These are obvious logical blunders and result in irrationality, paradox, and self-contradiction. So again I ask, what is the spheroid spinning with respect to?
The rest of the article covers more particular aspects of the theory which are completely impossible to pursue without clearing up the plethora of problems I have identified. The theory is a non-starter either because it relies on self-contradiction or because the authors are completely incapable of communicating without sounding
Untangling the syntactical, logical, and conceptual problems the heart of this "Theory of Everything" is presumed to be that the universe IS a football-shaped object that spins about a non-symmetric axis. They do not explicitly define "universe" as such but this is their definition as near as I can tell. The theory fails horribly because it cannot answer the most basic questions:
Question 1: What is the spheroid spinning with respect to?
Question 2: What is the spheroid made of?
Question 4: What is nothing?
Question 5: What is something?
The theory fails because it does not answer these simple, elementary level questions. I welcome the theory's proponent(s) to clarify.