Vortices, spirals, and cycles

Blog 20160127 Vortices, spirals, and cycles

Rick Dutkiewicz writes:

“This is off-topic; not relevant to my proof-reading or review [of the manuscript for “Infinite Universe Theory”]. I just have a bee in my bonnet over this idea, ever since first reading TTAOS.[1] I’ve thought about this often, and have never presented it to you until now.

“Vortex theory observes that the basic structure of matter necessarily involves circular motion.” and “what we commonly believe to be linear motion actually is circular.”

I always wonder about the significance of the fact that a microcosm is always a vortex (or circular) relative to itself. But relative to the immediate macrocosm, the motion of the microcosm is not really circular, it’s spiral. The earth spins as a vortex relative to itself, it traces a teeter-tottering ellipse relative to the sun, but it traces a spiral relative to the macrocosm outside of the solar system (also with much “teeter-tottering” going on, I’m sure). I always think that this spiraling motion is so universal to the motion of all matter, it must be significant at the so-called quantum level, as well as every other “level”. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this (possibly in your blog), since you've never touched on the significance of spirals interacting with spirals.

Thanks.”

Rick, thank you too for the interesting question. You are correct in implying that spiralic motion may be as important as vortex motion. That is another reason that Newton’s First Law of Motion is only an approximation, an idealization never to be realized in nature. All real “straight lines” are parts of vortices and, as you point out, parts of spirals. In the real world, straight lines only appear to be straight for short distances. We may think of the railroad track between Chicago and San Francisco as being straight but, obviously, it follows the curvature of Earth. When the macrocosm is broadened to include the Sun, Chicago necessarily traces a spiral around the Sun. Only the exact center of Earth would trace a relatively circular orbit about the Sun. When the macrocosm is broadened still further to include the galaxy, Chicago traces yet another spiral.

The upshot is that, not only are all microcosms in motion with respect to all other microcosms, but all microcosms have spiralic motions with respect to other microcosms. This is where Steve Puetz’s wonderful observations involving universal cycles come into play.[2] He has shown astounding regularity among cycles with periods ranging from days to billions of years. We do not know what is causing the regularity, but have long thought that it has much to do with changes in the aether. The reason I am so interested in it is because it appears to be a confirmation of my philosophy: univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. The cycles appear to be reflections of the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). The spiralic motions that you mentioned continuously place microcosms in nearly unprecedented environments. I write “nearly unprecedented” because no two microcosms or their macrocosms are completely dissimilar. According to the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), each trip around the Sun is similar; each trip around the galaxy is similar.

Steve’s universal cycles appear to range from the infinitely small to the infinitely large, in tune with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The observed cross-correlations among the cycles imply that microcosms influence each other via some medium and that the intervening space is not empty. There is no reason to believe that vortices, spirals, and cycles would not occur at the quantum level.

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

[2] Puetz, Stephen J., 2009, The unified cycle theory: How cycles dominate the structure of the universe and influence life on earth: Denver, OutskirtsPress.com, 489 p.

Prokoph, Andreas, and Puetz, Stephen  J., 2015, Period-Tripling and Fractal Features in Multi-Billion Year Geological Records: Mathematical Geosciences, p. 1-20. [10.1007/s11004-015-9593-y]

Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.

---, 2015, Quasi-periodic fractal patterns in geomagnetic reversals, geological activity, and astronomical events: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, v. 81, no. Part A, p. 246–270. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2015.09.029]

Puetz, Stephen J., Prokoph, Andreas, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Evaluating alternatives to the Milankovitch theory: Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, v. 170, p. 158–165. [doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2015.10.006]

Puetz, Stephen J., Prokoph, Andreas, Borchardt, Glenn, and Mason, Edward W., 2014, Evidence of synchronous, decadal to billion year cycles in geological, genetic, and astronomical events: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, v. 62–63, no. 0, p. 55-75. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2014.04.001]

Does dark matter and dark energy prove Einstein wrong?

Blog 20160120 Does dark matter and dark energy prove Einstein wrong?

Here is an interesting heads up:

“Hi Glenn,

I found the attached "ad" in today's Houston Chronicle newspaper.

I look forward to your reaction, if the ad even makes sense.

Ed Mason”

Thanks so much Ed. If anything, this ad succinctly shows how desperate folks are to clean up the mess left behind by Einstein and the cosmogonists. I come across such “reformist” attempts almost daily. One main characteristic is the acceptance of parts of the relativity/BBT lore and rejection of other parts. Another is the lack of clearly stated fundamental assumptions[1] from which the analysis proceeds.

Here, Mr. Dunham accepts the mainstream interpretation that the universe is expanding, which is based on Einstein’s erroneous particle theory of light. He rejects the Dark Matter interpretation out of hand simply because he expects there to be nearby evidence for it. But, as mentioned in our book,[2] nonluminous matter is common in the universe. Rotating galaxies appear to have much greater masses than nonrotating galaxies even though they may be equally luminous. We speculated that the nonluminous matter consisted of planets not associated with star systems. This follows from vortex theory, in which the rotation of a microcosm causes its submicrocosms to be differentiated by size and density according to Stokes’ Law. We have a demonstration of it on our website.[3] In essence, large, dense objects are pushed toward the center of a vortex more rapidly than small, light objects. Because independent planets are too small to be luminous, we cannot see them with telescopes. In any case, the evidence for dark matter is overwhelming. Big Bang or not, its absence in the local region is no disproof of relativity. That was done long ago by Sagnac's experimental support in favor of aether,[4] and more recently, by Bryant, as mentioned in last week’s Blog.[5]

Be reminded, however, that “Dark Energy” cannot possibly exist. Energy is a calculation. All the universe can offer is matter in motion. And, according to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), energy cannot exist or occur as a separate constituent of the universe. Nonetheless, dark matter must be in motion too, and we should be able to perform energy calculations based on it.

Another error in the Dunham analysis involves his view that the Big Bang can be treated as a 3-D explosion. However, if one wishes to play in the Big Bang sandbox, one must play by the rules, which, according to GRT, use time as a dimension. Instead, readers know that time is motion[6] and that Einstein’s objectification of it is his greatest philosophical error.[7] The upshot is that we also refuse to play by those rules, but we do not have to deal with the logical contradictions common to reformists such as Dunham. The infinite universe cannot expand, for there is nowhere for it to expand into. Real explosions slow down with distance in the same way that a cannon ball slows down with distance. By accepting the opposite view, Dunham then must invent some way of speeding up the 3-D explosion. He then has to surround the entire observed universe with “attracting”[8] galaxies, which for some unknown reason, are traveling at superluminal velocities, “pulling” the observed universe apart. All this, to make peace with the regressive view.

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/TENASSUMPTIONSOFSCIENCE_files/TTAOS.html

 ].

[2] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/ ].

[3] http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/

[4] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710.

Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413.

[5] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2016/01/disruptive-rewriting-rules-of-physics.html

[6] http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/11/time-is-motion.html

[7] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68 [ http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ].

[8] A similar idea has been presented in cosmology as the “great attractor,” which is one explanation for the fact that galaxy clusters appear to be travelling in a preferred direction (Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, no. L49–L52). In our “Universal Cycle Theory” book, Steve and I speculated that this might be evidence that the observed universe was revolving within a “local mega-vortex” beyond direct observation.

Disruptive-Rewriting the rules of physics

Blog 20160113 Disruptive-Rewriting the rules of physics

I am proud to announce the eminent publication of a new book by my good friend Steve Bryant. I reviewed the first half and found it excellent. I will do a complete review later.

Here is the description of the book at Amazon:

“Once in a lifetime we might witness a scientific event so rare and revolutionary that it changes our lives forever. Imagine awakening on the day in history when we learned that the Earth is round, not flat; or awakening on the day we learned that the planets orbit the Sun, not the Earth. Now, imagine awakening tomorrow to learn that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong!

Demonstrating that Einstein’s theory is wrong is a tall order. Undaunted, author Steven B. Bryant doesn’t simply prove relativity wrong, he shows that relativity theory was never correct in the first place. Unencumbered by relativity, Bryant introduces Modern Mechanics, his new unified theory that is easy to understand and more accurate than Einstein’s theory of relativity. In Disruptive, you’ll learn:

·         Where Einstein makes several mistakes that invalidate relativity theory and why these mistakes were not previously found.

·         Why Modern Mechanics is a unified model that is more accurate than relativity theory.

·         How Einstein’s theory can be wrong and still provide useful – but no longer the most accurate – answers.

·         How Modern Mechanics is one theory that explains experiments that previously required three: classical mechanics, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics.

·         How Modern Mechanics supports faster–than–light travel and communication.

·          

Disruptive is a thought–provoking book that will fundamentally transform our understanding of physics, forever changing the way we view space and time.”

Amazon says that the book is the #1 best seller in its list of 30 Hot New Releases in Physics of Mechanics and it hasn’t even been released yet!

The release date is January 26, but you can preorder at:

http://www.amazon.com/Disruptive-Rewriting-physics-Steven-Bryant/dp/099624090X/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452276198&sr=1-7&keywords=disruptive&tag=rnwap-20