Universal Vortical Singularity

[junglelord]

I totally agree with the science you present. I do not buy the black hole dribble from NASA, nor the dark matter.
I did read the link you provided and from what I see, you work their dribble into your work, probably because you felt you had too, as they say these things exist. I do not think they exist at all. Subtract the effort to prove NASA correct over black holes and dark matter and I would go 100% with your work, its NASA's work I take offense too.

I hope that clarifies things.

[mague]

Finally figured out how to hyperlink in this forum.

UVS

UVS has a strong case for Antarctica Ozone Hole, check it out.

Hello Vincent,

i am a big fan of vortex'es. One question though.
I see either suction or ejection. The oceanic whirlpool attracts, the corona loops eject.

Lets imagine a small sphere or cube or... of 1cm diameter hovering in a room at 1.5m altitude. (Numbers made up for imagination)
The sphere is creating a vortex and sucking in air from below it. It attracts air and accelerates it until the spere is "swallowing" the stream of air.
Then the sphere opens on top and ejects the air.The air has still an accellerated spin and stream and so the air ejects like a fountain. Since it is accellerated it ejects the air maybe 2.5m above the sphere to 4m altitude.
Once the ejected air lost all its energy from accellerartion the base vortex sucks it in again.

Due to inertia the sucking vortex has a wider diameter. Lets say it has a 2.5m diameter and a length of 1.5m. Because the ejected air is maximum acccelerated it is traveling more then 1.5m, namely 2.5m, and then looses energy very fast. The diameter of the upper vortex is maybe only 0.9m. To make it simple we imagine we have no gravity, only the pull of the sucking lower vortex. Once started the whole air of the room is cycling through the sphere.

What i wanted to show with my silly setup is the egg shape of two vortex'es. Or is it rather one vortex with two ends..? And how do we call the virtual ring or area where the accellerated air lost all energy and turns from accellerated to sucked air ?

Have you ever recognized something similar when observing vortex'es for your theory ?

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hello mague, greeting, and welcome to this topic.

I am a fan of vortexes too, maybe we can get a vortexes fan club going and I will invite my vortex buddies and all those who are interested to join. Group activities for admiration for this wonderful creation of nature together (Internet mean) would be terrific.

Any naturally created unisonal vortex has the characteristic of duality with dynamics in wave functions in twp strokes, attracting is one stroke and ejecting is the other stroke acting in unison; a balanced complimentary vortical pair that are apparently opposite and inversed in a oneness, the first stroke is usually hidden in illusion as a nothingness beyond our perception; a nothing-something that is often elusive from the reality we perceive.

i am a big fan of vortex'es. One question though.
I see either suction or ejection. The oceanic whirlpool attracts, the corona loops eject.

Nice thought experiment you have, I could vividly form the mental picture for the scenario with your very descriptions.

This dynamics would not create that vortex to suck in air from the bottom, it will form an inversed vortex at the bottom that pushes air out in the column instead. Stir a rod in water you can see this effect.

Lets imagine a small sphere or cube or... of 1cm diameter hovering in a room at 1.5m altitude. (Numbers made up for imagination)
The sphere is creating a vortex and sucking in air from below it. It attracts air and accelerates it until the spere is "swallowing" the stream of air.

Presuming that this pull of the sucking lower vortex somehow happened and pushing air upward through the opened sphere on the top, this is a dipole free vortex with two ends, is a single longitudinal waveform. And you are correct that this has an egg shape boundary forming a shell around the circulation with vortically consolidated air forming the boundary. That virtual ring or area is a thin layer of consolidate air deforms into a parabolic shape cause by the inversed bow shock wave tunneling through the vortex column of the free vortex below, this is call a forced vortex.

Then the sphere opens on top and ejects the air.The air has still an accellerated spin and stream and so the air ejects like a fountain. Since it is accellerated it ejects the air maybe 2.5m above the sphere to 4m altitude.
Once the ejected air lost all its energy from accellerartion the base vortex sucks it in again.

Due to inertia the sucking vortex has a wider diameter. Lets say it has a 2.5m diameter and a length of 1.5m. Because the ejected air is maximum acccelerated it is traveling more then 1.5m, namely 2.5m, and then looses energy very fast. The diameter of the upper vortex is maybe only 0.9m. To make it simple we imagine we have no gravity, only the pull of the sucking lower vortex. Once started the whole air of the room is cycling through the sphere.

What i wanted to show with my silly setup is the egg shape of two vortex'es. Or is it rather one vortex with two ends..? And how do we call the virtual ring or area where the accellerated air lost all energy and turns from accellerated to sucked air ?

In UVS terminology, a forced vortex driven by unisonal vortex as a balanced complementary pair is refer as vortrex.

Have you ever recognized something similar when observing vortex'es for your theory ?

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

This post is to establish a framework in order to repond to junglelord's last post. The issused raised here are only meant for people who have adopted the concept of plasma cosmology or the concept of Aether, it brought out some very acute and sensitive issues just for the purpose of exchanging ideas among the members of TB Forum in an amicable manner, has no intention to flame people in the public on different camp who are not for the ideas, nor want to contest in any debate with it with anyone. Any term or statement if offensive in any manner or whatsoever is most regretted.

Excerpts from : Universal Vortical Singularity clarifies the concept of gravity

General theory of relativity (GR) for galactic gravity is based on stars revolving around its Galactic center in orbits is governed by relative gravitational attraction between stars.

Universal Vortical Singularity postulates that stars did not orbit its galactic center with galactic gravity, stars in a galaxy is spiraling on a galactic vortex in a galactic spheroid. This suggest that GR is based on a misconception caused by a complexly inversed illusion.

Based on Universal Vortical Singularity, the effect of gravity is caused by electromagnetic force repelling inside a plasmatic spheroid driven in a vortical system, in paradigm shifts of this single model, the mechanism for galactic gravity, geometrical gravity and quantum gravity are entirely compatible. For elucidation see the geometrically structure of a galaxy, evolution of stars and galaxies and the geometrical structure of an atom.

Theory of gravitational lensing effect based on general theory of relativity postulates that light waves have mass and is thus subjected to gravitational effect that causes it to bend near large celestial mass. The effect can be described by observing several deflected images of a distant street lamp looking through a wine glass.

Universal Vortical Singularity postulates that light is refracted in a curved path in viscous matter of an invisible plasmatic spheroid on a large celestial object with varying refractive index cause by density gradient in the medium consolidated by geometrical gravity. Based on Universal Vortical Singularity, this is the fundamental reason that light would bend in a curved path when it enters an invisible medium that has density gradient caused by gravitational compression following the principle of inverse-square law; light bends in a curved path through optical refraction in the medium with density gradient. This suggest that the theory of gravitational lensing effect is based on a misconception caused by a complexly inversed illusion.

Image on right is a negative picture of Eddington's photograph of the 1919 solar eclipse experiment, below the Sun it showed the light of a star that has traveled in a curved path, believed to be under influence of Sun's gravitational field.
1919 solar eclipse

Gas as a lower density viscous medium has dynamic similarity in fluid principles as a higher density viscous medium, when light enters an invisible atmosphere, it could be refracted in a gaseous atmosphere like it is refracted in water. Invisible atmosphere layers have different density at different altitudes, follows the principle of inverse-square law, hence has gradually varying refractive index that varies with density of gas at varying altitude; density gradient.

The concept for GR that gravity of a mass would bend light in a curved path is mathematically equivalent to gravity would condense an invisible medium on the celestial mass following the principle of inverse-square law that causes light to bend in this medium that has varying refractive index as a result of density gradient.

Why assume the space above photosphere of Sun is vacuum? See "what is dark matter?"

Universal Vortical Singularity based on unisonal vortex mechanism postulates that Singularity (astronomy) emerges from a single point of zero volume that has enormous but finite inertial forces that renders the effect of gravity, it does not compress into a single point of zero volume with infinite gravity; this is a complexly inversed illusion cause by paradoxical effect of Universal Vortical Singularity. The dynamics of the universe is not expanding in an explosion, it is vortically imploding in a process of vortex dilation on an emerging ultra vortex. This is an ultimate for complexly inversed illusion caused by the paradoxical effect of Universal Vortical Singularity in the physical universe.

Based on the model of Universal Vortical Singularity, the phenomenon of expanding universe is a localized vortical event caused by the effects of an ultra galaxy vortex (hypothetical).

[junglelord]

I do apprciate the effort and I can see from a matter-energy perspective what your trying to accomplish. I have tried out the energy-matter hat for years, it is not cutting it for me. The four force model, same problem. Up until last year I would have agreed 100%. I have since left the four force model and matter-energy theory behind.

This year I am on another journey.

I have my headspace in The Aether Physics Model, by Dave Thompson, right now.
I therefore do not subscribe to the energy-matter paradigm but rather the aether-angular momentum paradigm.
Mass is non-material dimensional and is constant in APM.
Nothing ever happens to mass. It is a universal constant. All electrons weigh the same, all the time. SR is not valid in APM.

In APM its a three force model, Electrostatic Charge, Electromagnetic Charge, Gravity.

I have to therefore say that while I do incorporate the vortex as it was Konstantine Meyl that turned me on to it, I am currently working all angles from APM. I believe in a Klauza-Klein five dimensional universe, with circular strings in two dimensions creating a luxodrome path around a electrostatic charged sphere. I see electrons and protons as two distributed charges, a sphere and a toroid. These two charges wave, and expand and contract, giving the appear of a particle or a wave. All this stems from a soup of aether that has nothing but vortex forms, driven by a Gforce.

Therefore the vortex is the archtype form, that much is certain. On that we certainly agree. I do appluad your work within the confines of the matter-energy theory. However the LHC will determine if the particle-mass-energy- theory sinks for good. I predict a theory that drowns in its own invalidations. Higgs force fields and Higgs boson, I predict do not exist. I see no unification of the electroweak force. I see no gluons. Quarks are not elemental. I could go on, but I think you get the point. I invite you to learn the APM model, its well worth anyones effort to see the Unified Field Theory that is product of vortex forms.

Cheers/.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

The post on "Universal Vortical Singularity clarifies the concept of gravity" was merely intended to let you know the level of loggerhead with the mainstream with the UVS hypothesis. Now you can cleary see I am not camping at the side in the contingents of "black hole", "dark energy", "Singularity", "GR", "SR" or BB and the likes. My work is not in matter-energy perspective nor in the particle physics direction for exact science on quantitative prediction pursues, or whatsoever gem the mainstream highly regard as scientific evaluation method.

I have had several paradigm crashes in the past and the experience was terrifying for me. That at one moment I can swear by it with my life in a pursue and then reach a point to look back on how silly the whole thing was to the extend of feeling very unberable that I should not have gone in; that I was such a fool, the biggest idiot on the whole planet to have believed and had so much faith with silly stuffs I could not see so in the past. Time and again history repeat itself and I eventually believe such endeavours are inherent, its like it is in the DNA and in some way it seems explicable, I therefore want to find out what are the circumstances as such that make me so dumb while I thought that was so smart of me?

I do apprciate the effort and I can see from a matter-energy perspective what your trying to accomplish. I have tried out the energy-matter hat for years, it is not cutting it for me. The four force model, same problem. Up until last year I would have agreed 100%. I have since left the four force model and matter-energy theory behind.

This year I am on another journey.

I am new to APM but definitely in the aether-angular momentum paradigm path, will explore more. But you mentioned you incorporate vortex concept into it, where can I access these studies with vortex synergized to APM?

I have my headspace in The Aether Physics Model, by Dave Thompson, right now.
I therefore do not subscribe to the energy-matter paradigm but rather the aether-angular momentum paradigm.
Mass is non-material dimensional and is constant in APM.
Nothing ever happens to mass. It is a universal constant. All electrons weigh the same, all the time. SR is not valid in APM.

In APM its a three force model, Electrostatic Charge, Electromagnetic Charge, Gravity.

I have to therefore say that while I do incorporate the vortex as it was Konstantine Meyl that turned me on to it, I am currently working all angles from APM. I believe in a Klauza-Klein five dimensional universe, with circular strings in two dimensions creating a luxodrome path around a electrostatic charged sphere. I see electrons and protons as two distributed charges, a sphere and a toroid. These two charges wave, and expand and contract, giving the appear of a particle or a wave. All this stems from a soup of aether that has nothing but vortex forms, driven by a Gforce.

Its wonderful to find someone who is also so entreched into the vortex world so immersely, researchers of this breed is rarefied, if there are any at all.

Therefore the vortex is the archtype form, that much is certain. On that we certainly agree. I do appluad your work within the confines of the matter-energy theory. However the LHC will determine if the particle-mass-energy- theory sinks for good. I predict a theory that drowns in its own invalidations. Higgs force fields and Higgs boson, I predict do not exist. I see no unification of the electroweak force. I see no gluons. Quarks are not elemental. I could go on, but I think you get the point. I invite you to learn the APM model, its well worth anyones effort to see the Unified Field Theory that is product of vortex forms.
Cheers/.

So you see you cannot converse with others in a langugae they are not familiar with to understand at all, the first impression to others on the vortex concept I postulates is quickly dismissed in a flash as some crazy ideas of a crazy man. So you understand why those "dark matter", "dark energy" terminology. How the world are you going to unify anything if you do not speak the language in their terms at all? No one wants to do have any business with you at all; didn't you people experience that?

I realized a paradoxical universe, and through it I saw a totality and the unifications. You should know by now the direction UVS is heading to, the natural phenomenon comprehensively explained is just only the means towards the end.

For now, I would like to shift your attention to A flat world event, and Paradoxical effect of UVS.

More later.

[junglelord]

Chapter 2, SOTA third edition, Ontological Foundation, Aether Physics Model

Nonmaterial Aether
1. What is a quantum constant of the aether unit?
Answer Page 31
A non material aether unit is a two spin rotating magnetic field (rmfd). A quantum aether unit has a percise value equal to coulombs constant times 16pi^2
Au = rmfd = k C x 16pi^2

2. Is the rotating magnetic field concept of the aether presented in the Aether Physics Model similar to any other aether concepts?
Answer Page 31
John Bernoulli's Whirlpool Aether. All space, is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the aether appears to possess and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools. Due to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate, and so presses against the neighboring whirlpools.

3. Is there a simple experiment, one can do to prove the existence of the aether?
Answer Page 31
The first experiment requires a magnet and a cathode ray tube. The cathode ray tube could be your computer monitor, TV or oscilloscope screen. Make sure your cathode ray tube has a degaussing feature before doing this experiment, or you may permanently disfigure your viewing screen. Place the magnetic against the cathode ray tube with the North or South Pole facing the screen. You will notice a pattern seemingly caused by the magnetic flux of the magnetic as it reorganizes the electron beams. With the magnet flush against the screen, twisted back and forth. You will notice the pattern on the screen does not change. Had the magnet been the source of the magnetic flux, the pattern would have changed since the magnetic flux would link to the molecules and atoms of the magnet. However, the magnetic flux arises from the aether and thus exist relative to the aether. Twisting the magnet will not affect the magnetic flux of the aether. The same experiment works with ferrofluid.

4. Does aether move freely through matter?
Answer Page 32
Aether gives form to matter, but matter also occupies the aether and manipulates it. Aether can only move through matter that is not dense. Frame dragging is another euphemism of the standard model and tended to acknowledge the properties of aether, but without calling it Aether. The frame dragging of general relativity theory is tantamount to the notion of aether moving with matter.

5. Did Einstein write any papers dedicated to the aether?
Answer Page 33
Concerning the Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields.
It states the magnetic flux is a potential state of the aether. It is a passive resistance to electric current that produces the magnetic field.

6. What is Dynamic Space in APM?
Answer Page 34-35
In APM space and time are united in such a way that the two are inseparable, producing a single unit called double cardioid (dcrd). We need a coordinate system that includes both space and time. The perception of space time through our bodies, gives us the appearance of just one dimension of linear time, just one linear time is an illusion. In reality, the time dimensions of aether are actually frequency dimensions, and there are two of them. Together these two dimensions of frequency produce a spherical unit of resonance. In reality, the quantum universe has the qualities of space-resonance, we perceive the physical, macro universe with the qualities of space-time. Space and resonance integrate through a shared geometry. In other words, space and resonance are the same entity, but viewed from two perspectives, which are orthogonal to each other.

7. What is the Geometric Structure of Aether?
Answer Page 35
The geometrical constant of the aether induces to be 16pi^2
This translates to a geometrical shape of a tubular loxodrome distributed over two adjacent spheres. Further induced is that the spheres have electrostatic polarity, the whole structure has magnetic polarity, and the spin directions has gravitational polarity. One fourth of the total loxodrome surrounding both spheres is a tube with the surface constant of 4pi^2, the toroid constant. Because toroids have two radii, the small radius and a large radius, they can have varying radii lengths but still have the same surface area. This is why all onta share the same quantum surface area as the Compton wavelength squared. It is because all onta have the same surface area that we can graphically represent them as twin tubular loxodromes while making use of the quantum distance squared as their surface area. The perfectly symmetrical representation only applies to the surface areas and to the electrostatic charges.

8. What constants are not symmetrical in APM?
Answer Page 36
Mass, distributed frequency, and strong charge dimensions are not symmetrical in a given aether unit. The unequal distributions of quantum distributed frequency effect the general form of the physical universe and give us shapes like flowers, butterflies, tree branching, leaf patterns, snail shells, skeletal structures, body organ composition, and every other pattern that arises from growth processes. The unequal mass division reflects in the observed difference between electron and proton masses in the proportional strong charges.

9. What does that toroid constant represent?
Answer Page 36-37
4pi^2 represents the surface geometry of 1/2 spin onta. The electron and the proton are examples of 1/2 spin onta. Half of the double loxodrome is a geometrical constant of 8pi^2, and is either the loxodrome around a single sphere or half a loxodrome around two spheres. A full loxodrome represents 1 spin, such as the photon posesses. The full loxodrome around both spheres represents 2 spin, such as the aether unit and supposed “graviton” possess. 16pi^2 is the square of 4pi, which is the spherical constant. The 4pi, spherical constant is also related to the speed of light squared constant and describes the geometrical qualities. All physical existence ultimately derives its geometry from the aether. The geometry represents the available spin positions for the angular momentum to reside in the aether unit. Aether images do not represent some kind of a particle are otherwise solid entity. The color coding is intended to show that each spin possession is a unique pathway, the blue path is for the electron, gold is for the positron, aqua is for the antiproton, and red is for the proton. The tubular loxodrome's are accurate only in relation to the surface constant. The surface area of each half spin loxodrome is always equal to the Compton wavelength squared. However, the small and large electron and proton radii vary in length, and therefore so do the sphere radii. The aether, being a two spin rotating magnetic field, is flexible in this regard, and allows for the centrifugal expansion as envisioned by Bernoulli. The aether unit is thus a field in which subatomic particles can exist. It is because of this geometry of aether that it is possible to model the structures of electrons, photons, protons, neutrons and their interactions. Further, the aether includes the dimension of mass and charge. An enormous force the Gforce is emanating from a nonmaterial source acts upon the strong charge dimension is giving rise to the aether.

The Physical Universe
10. What is at the core of the aether physics model?
Answer Page 37
At the core of the APM is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, the first such theory to exist in modern science. The Unified Force Theory develops from the concept of distributed charge and fine structures of the onta (fine structures are proportions of spherical elementary charge to equalivalent spherical strong charge). The strong force is mathematically and experimentally proven to have a charge that compliments, but is different from, elementary charge. They Casimir equation is proof that the electron has a strong charge and that it obeys a strong force law. The theory and experiments to prove the existence of electron strong force were not seen for what they were because of the investment and that pi meson (pion). When examining the Newton gravitational law, coulombs electrostatic law, and the strong force law, what seemed to be four distinct forces demonstrate to be three different manifestations of the Gforce with three different dimension's.

11. What is the Gforce comparable to?
Answer Page 38
The Gforce is comparable to the Sun and the three aspects of onto, (electrostatic charge, electromagnetic charge, and mass), are comparable to three different colors of glass. We see three different forces in the physical world, but they are all manifestations of one Gforce, as three different colors of light emanates from three different colored panes of glass, even though they are manifestations of one light source. This is an example of how force evolves into complexity similar to the way subatomic particles bind to become Atoms. The so called a weak force is really a proportion of electrostatic charge to electromagnetic charge.

12. What does Primary Angular Momentum explain?
Answer Page 38
Primary angular momentum explains the structure behind all matter and light interactions, thereby eliminating the mysterious wave particle duality theory of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Primary angular momentum is the primary form of material existence and explains the photoelectric effect, pair production, and Compton Effect in units that directly relate to the electron and photon.

13. What new equations does APM hypothesize?
Answer Page 38
The nuclear binding forces and electron binding energies of all isotopes. The preliminary steps towards the discovery of an atomic spectral equations, which predicts the spectra of all isotopes and their ions. The electron and nuclear binding energy equations and atomic spectra equations are destined to be the new holy grail of physics. We have already had significant success with the electron binding energy equation. From these three equations, we will likely develop molecular equations, which can predict the properties of any substance before it is known to exist.

Unified Force Theory
14. What is the foundation of the Aether Physics Model?
Answer. Page38
The Unified Force Theory is the foundation upon which the Aether Physics Model rests. The standard model of physics recognizes only one type of charge the elementary charge, which has a single dimension of charge. In APM we notate all charges as distributed. Charge is not a point, and we ignore structural characteristics that result from treating it as a point. Charge always appears over the surface of an object, even if the object is a single electron. Therefore the correct dimensions of charge are charge squared. Instead of presenting elementary charge as e, elementary charge the present as e squared (e^2).
e = 1.602 x 10^-19 coul
e^2 = 2.567 x 10^-38 coul^2

15. What replaces the gluons in APM?
Answer Page 39
According to the standard model gluons carry the strong force in quarks, and pions carry the strong force in nuclei. In APM, the strong force carries by strong charge. Strong charge is related to elementary charge, but it has a different geometry, spin and magnitude. Strong charge notates as e emax for the electron, e pmax for the proton, and e nmax for the neutron. But as in the case of elementary charge, Strong charge is always distributed. So for example, electron strong charge would notate as e emax^2

16. What is the weak interaction in APM?
Answer. Page 39
The weak interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the strong charge. The weak interaction is equal to 8pi times the fine structure of the onn. The relationship of the elementary charge, strong charge, and weak interaction for each onn appears as follows where * (alpha), p, n are the fine structures of the electron, proton and neutron respectively.
Electron onn = e^2/e emax^2 = 8pi *
Proton onn = e^2/e pmax^2 = 8pi p
Neutron onn = e^2/e nmax^2 = 8pi n

Primary Angular Momentum
17. How can we best describe subatomic particles and Atoms?
Answer Page 40
Atoms are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionally enormous amounts of energy and shimmers at a different and precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their classical state, what scientists call the visible world. In APM these multilayered clouds are the angular momentum of individual onta. Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum. When we take the literal dimension of primary angular momentum we find that there is a mass dimension, they are two length dimensions, and there is a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq

18. What is a good way to visualize primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 40-41
One way to visualize this is to see a line of mass moving perpendicular at a velocity. Take a straight object, like a pencil and hold it in front of you. The pencil represents a mass times length. In one quick motion move the pencil at a velocity perpendicular to its length across a table. The blurred image you see graphically represents the nature of primary angular momentum. Of course, an electron is not literally a straight line moving sideways. We must take into account the curvature of the Aether double loxodrome structure. Since the onn mass has to fit in the small circumference of the loxodrome tube, the line of mass would appear as a circle. Ligamen circulatus (LC) names this line of mass. The perpendicular path of the line of mass as it moves sideways also traces out a circular path. The resulting geometry is toroidal. The toroid, however, traces on as a sphere and from pole to pole, when viewed in space-resonance coordinates. When viewed in space-time coordinates as with human perception, the shape is actually that of a cardioid. The Aether imparts, and thus accounts for, the spin in the loxodrome structure of the onn. APM full equations for the toroid like geometry of primary angular momentum and its relationship to spin will be examined later.

19. What are the general characteristics of primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 41
Primary angular momentum is a circumferential line (ligament circulatus) moving sideways, the onto have only two dimension of length. The curvature of Aether acts as a mold and imparts geometry to the onta. The ligament circulators moves in time, which means that the onn exist as a function of time between one moment and the next moment. Time is consequently, a component of onta. We could not perceive time and space with our bodies if our senses were not composed of primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is the first cause of physical perception, intimately related to the distributed frequency or resonance of the Aether. Because the ligament circulators moves perpendicular to its circumference, in order to scan an area (strong charge), the onta are not solid. They more closely resemble a cloud, as does the scanned area of a pencil moving back and forth in our vision. It is the scanning of primary angular momentum, which gives onta the appearances of a wave and a particle. Primary angular momentum explains why onta can appear as particles when we look at their strong charge, and can appear as waves when we look at the moving LC. Yet these are only appearances. The particulate and wave nature of primary angular momentum are illusions, having meaning only from our macro perspective. The reality of the onn structure is primary angular momentum and nothing else. Interestingly, photons can also appear as primary angular momentum, except that they are also exploding outward at the speed of light.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hey junglelord, thanks for the vote.

From the post on : Universal Vortical Singularity clarify the concept of gravity, you should know UVS doesn't agree with the so call gravitation lensing technique, or is selling the concept of "dark matter" or the theory of GR, or its modified version as SR. UVS in fact is on a head-on collision course with them.

Nevertheless, NASA did detect something in intergalactic space between galaxies, in the x-ray image for Cartwheel galaxy group, the so call "dark matter" body captured infers the apparently isolated galaxies in the group cluster is within a neat bipolar spheroid system, it outlined a very sexy galactic vortex column, in mainstream astronomy that was termed as "dark matter" with a "black hole" inside that was postulated to even suck in light with its infinite gravitation pull from the "Singularity"; UVS is definitely not promoting that sci-fi story.



Thanks for the article pertaining to APM and vortex, you have a very interesting simple experiment for detecting the presence of ether, please keep me posted on this when there are further progress on detecting this universal medium, or the likes. As for APM and your article I will need to take some time to go over it, currently I am engrossed with a modelling on how plasmatic torroid are vortically created in nature, the governing dynamics in this model is looking up very well and when completed it could provide answers to some very searching questions, such as how are the nested torroids formed and what dynamics shape the pause layers in between the terroid, and finding the magnetic monopole moment of vortical spheroid systems that are obiquitious in universe, but will take some time before it is done.

If you know any stuff that can prove that this all pervasive ether throughout universe is plasma, or can prove or at least infer on that Nasa dribble is actually condensed plasma, I would be very to interested to hear. At then I would probably be able to totally eradicate terms such as "dark matter from UVS website, maybe you are the dark knight to this rescue?; that this "dark matter" image they used as scientic evidence are actually proving themselve wrong scientifically and become the supporting scientific evidence for plasma cosmology instead.

Thanks and best to you,

I totally agree with the science you present. I do not buy the black hole dribble from NASA, nor the dark matter.
I did read the link you provided and from what I see, you work their dribble into your work, probably because you felt you had too, as they say these things exist. I do not think they exist at all. Subtract the effort to prove NASA correct over black holes and dark matter and I would go 100% with your work, its NASA's work I take offense too.

I hope that clarifies things.

[junglelord]

Hi Vincent


You have come to the right place. The members here are very apt at finding plasma alternatives to the "dark matter".
I believe that most of the items have been already given a plasma alternative option. You will have to comb the web site.

I do believe that the dark matter image was already taken to task and the plasma option was very logical. Its always to do with distributed charge and plasma modes. The way plasma reacts with the distributed charge will determine its mode, be it dark mode, glow mode, arc mode, or the Correa's pulsed abnormal glow mode. The study of double layers, voltage gradients, plasma currents, all tend to create spiral galaxies, and will account for all obervations, from optical to structural.

APM is a quantum structual model. That incorporates all the data and reinvestigates the way it has been organized.
The classical mess of modern physics of the four force model of particles is there for the taking. APM took the data and reorganized it with strict definitions for the four words

Dimensions
Constants
Units
Measurments

There are five dimensions in APM
Length
Frequency
Mass
Charge
Speherical Geometry

The aether quantifies as tiny vortex forms that encapsulate angular momentum, this tensegrity model of continual tensional charge and discontinuous angular momentum compression, cause matter to be formed. APM is about aether units that encapsulate angular momentum (quantum spin). Electrons and Photons exchange angular momentum in APM, not energy. Energy is a product of 5-D analysis and is not fundamental in APM, nor is it equal to mass or matter. Angular momentum is fundamental. There is no eqaulity in Einsteins equations.

I totally enjoy your work Vincent, I take it in the light of the information I provided. I think your work is important and very exciting. I like to marry most things if possible, as I work with a compartive methodology in my way of thinking. I see a lot to compare and relate between your work and all vortex work in general.
Cheers.

[Lloyd]

Hey Vincent,
- Sorry I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion, but I read your first posts here and looked over your site and found this image http://www.singularvortex.com/pictures/ ... _ridge.jpg, said to be a crater on the NE Pacific Ocean ridge. Can you tell me what your source was for that, and or where exactly that is on the ridge? like coordinates, or distance and direction from somewhere? It resembles craters on Olympus Mons on Mars, so I'm hoping to find a closer view of it, maybe along with other data to make a better comparison.
- Thanks for any help.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Lloyd,

You're alright, I just join this forum this month and you haven't really missed much yet, and welcome to this vortex topic.

The source for NE Pacific Ocean ridge is http://www.visualizationsoftware.com/3dem/gallery.html

Afraid that site do not have much details for its exact whereabouts, you might need to trace down from there and perhaps the person who took that picture can tell you where. I goggled a bit just but to no avail. That image is definitely very peculiar, its rare to see volcano craters in cluster on Earth; convincingly a vortical singularity of unisonal vortex.

Best to you.

Hey Vincent,
- Sorry I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion, but I read your first posts here and looked over your site and found this image http://www.singularvortex.com/pictures/ ... _ridge.jpg, said to be a crater on the NE Pacific Ocean ridge. Can you tell me what your source was for that, and or where exactly that is on the ridge? like coordinates, or distance and direction from somewhere? It resembles craters on Olympus Mons on Mars, so I'm hoping to find a closer view of it, maybe along with other data to make a better comparison.
- Thanks for any help.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi junglelord,

I am glad that you have enjoyed exploring the UVS website, and appreciate very much that you have relates it with a good depth of understanding from another perspective.

I just got the modeling of unisonal evolution mechanism worked out on a simple platform, its now at infancy stage and to go further in this APM could be a good source for reference, please have a look and perhaps you can tell me where to find related info from APM.

If you managed to incorporate the paradigms of UVS into APM, I can imagine the synergy out of it would be tremedously informing, this could help me and my vortex buddies to relates with APM better, and help APM member to get into the world of UVS. So far you are the only APM guru who are well into UVS vortex.

Best to you.

Hi Vincent
The aether quantifies as tiny vortex forms that encapsulate angular momentum, this tensegrity model of continual tensional charge and discontinuous angular momentum compression, cause matter to be formed. APM is about aether units that encapsulate angular momentum (quantum spin). Electrons and Photons exchange angular momentum in APM, not energy. Energy is a product of 5-D analysis and is not fundamental in APM, nor is it equal to mass or matter. Angular momentum is fundamental. There is no eqaulity in Einsteins equations.

I totally enjoy your work Vincent, I take it in the light of the information I provided. I think your work is important and very exciting. I like to marry most things if possible, as I work with a compartive methodology in my way of thinking. I see a lot to compare and relate between your work and all vortex work in general.
Cheers.

[junglelord]

I am no guru, but a mere student. I am glad to assist. I make broad sweeps in some comparisons and very detailed ones in others. I see no real contridiction between the work you present and the work of Dave Thompson, that does not mean they are totally congurent. The main thing is that the vortex is a universal form that will lead to knowledge, no matter how it is pursued.

I just made a thread about Secrets of the Aether which will be of great benefit.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1021

Also here is Daves White Paper
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

His web page on APM
http://www.16pi2.com/

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Thanks junglelord, these links have been quite useful.

Quickly browsed thru the web page on APM and roughly grasped the concepts. I like the the Magnetic Scalar Wave detector and the work they done with it, in a comprehensive manner it present good evidence on presence of Aether as gravitational waves, and further implies logically with empirical observation on lightning scalar waves perturbations; implies Aether is fundamentally plasma. Excellence work!

Vortex is universal but that might not necessary lead to correct knowledge, one example is the thermal-mechanical model for vortex used in meteorology is such a crap; vortex in nature is very elusive and counterintuitive, therefore misleading.

From the introduction and your info I gather that APM is on quantum structure of the Universe postulated as having mathematically correct equations derived for GUT, is in the direction of particle physics against standard model. Unlike EU, APM doesn't seem to involve much into astro-phenomena, perhaps its somewhere abut I have missed it in the goggling. It deal with three fundamental forces instead of four. With no major conflicts at fundamental level, I agree with you APM and UVS is basically compatible and can compliment each other.

Like to highlight to you that UVS is a natural science research on cosmic evolution at macro levels in Charles Darwin style. This approach is categorized under "concept" by mainstream, is not a scientific theory according to their definitions. Its approach is based on inductive analysis to arrive at qualitative predictions, a methodology that has been falsified on the basis of deductive analysis, therefore not accepted by the mainstream; outright slammed away.

Btw, the modeling for unisonal evolution mechanism did came up quite well, was better than expected; it completes an analysis primarily on magnetic monopole moment. How I wish I could get a 3D interactive model working, it would be very fascinating to observe element creations dynamically with a geometrical model. This monopole model has the required answer to GUT and superstring theory, it unifies electrostatics, electromagnetism, magnetism and geometric gravity in a comprehensive manner; qualitatively. The next phase to further this model would be the quantitative analysis.

Any comment or suggestion is most welcome.

I am no guru, but a mere student. I am glad to assist. I make broad sweeps in some comparisons and very detailed ones in others. I see no real contridiction between the work you present and the work of Dave Thompson, that does not mean they are totally congurent. The main thing is that the vortex is a universal form that will lead to knowledge, no matter how it is pursued.

I just made a thread about Secrets of the Aether which will be of great benefit.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1021

Also here is Daves White Paper
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

His web page on APM
http://www.16pi2.com/

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi junglelord,

The modeling on unisonal evolution mechanism has resolving power way beyond my initial expectations.

Knew anyone expert in doing simple interactive 3D spatial graphics to work on this model? Better still if they can do real-time simulation in 3D spatial vector based on EM vortical dynamics.

More later.