Overviews of Universal Vortical Singularity

Based on hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity, through inductive reasoning it has uncovered numerous mysteries in those natural phenomena observed to be related to singular vortex. It has explained the enigma in phenomena of some known naturally occurred vortices, it has also explained comprehensively and reasonably with a single model for some vortex related phenomena that were explained otherwise by conventional knowledge, and has shown elements of singular vortex in other mysterious phenomena observed that were not cleared or not known to be of vortical origin.

In the process it clarifies misconceptions that has been misled by complexly inversed illusions of nature, thereby establishing basic ideas and fundamental concepts through correctly understand the observed phenomena based on singular vortex mechanism, primarily focused on triggering mechanism and fundamental working principles. When dealing with unknown fundamental of observed natural phenomena, the basic ideas and fundamental concepts should be the primary area of focus; validity analysis of a phenomenon takes precedence. If the basis of a theory is misled by illusions and therefore was developed based on misconceptions, such as having adopted concepts that the world is flat and Earth is the center of universe, henceforth, regardless of how developed, how profound, how accurate a scientific theory can predict quantitatively or how widely the established theory has been accepted by so many people independently for a very long period of time, the foundation is fundamentally incorrect. This is despite the so called proven scientific theory that was misled by illusions can be mathematically authenticated and has been useful for some purposes.

Laws of mathematics though is a powerful tool that can be conclusive through deductive reasoning to evaluate and prove a referred reality, however, it must not be mistaken that reality is validated absolutely by mathematical interpretation with an accurate quantitative prediction. The so called scientific theories deduced through quantitative measurements that have inferred any reality are the philosophies that interpret the numbers obtained from observations, with varying degree of uncertainties are fundamentally based on faith in a belief system. Many of such scientific theories were unwarily misled by paradoxes and therefore were ignorantly referring to the silhouettes as realities. See an excerpt from "Cargo Cult Science" by Richard Feynman relating to validity analysis.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

An example of this situation in a paradox is a historical concept of it takes twenty four hours for the Sun to revolve around the Earth and this prediction was further accurately measured quantitatively to a higher precision by the seconds using clock first invented in the eighth century. Through modern knowledge that has proven this fact to be fundamentally incorrect since two centuries ago, this is now completely dismissed without a slightest doubt, nevertheless, it was undoubtedly accepted independently by the majority of people from all over the world in all walks of life for millenniums. In another classical example, when it was believed that Venus revolves around the Earth, in a manner similar to moon that Venus also similarly displayed waxing crescent and waning gibbons through telescope observations, Galileo based on Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism, had made a qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus through validity analysis by inductive reasoning on Venus showed phases with a peculiarity proved it orbits the Sun and not the Earth.

The primary focus of this research is on identifying the vortical singularities of singular vortex in the phenomena studied, and on understanding the associated complexly inversed illusions caused by a paradoxical effect, for validity analysis at fundamental level through inductive reasoning based on hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity, to make qualitative predictions that are experimentally testable or provable.

List of qualitative predictions made through Universal Vortical Singularity in a single model
1. The fabric of Cosmo is vortically sustained by singular vortex mechanism in self-perpetual motions.
2. Sun is revolving around Galactic center on a perpetual vortical force driven by a galactic vortex.
3. Galaxy is suspended and driven by a galactic vortex.
4. An invisible galactic spheroid of viscous mass is present.
5. Galactic vortex is formed in a galactic spheroid.
6. Galaxy is induced by a galactic vortex that forms in a galactic spheroid.
7. Stars are evolved by vortical action of satellite galactic vortex through a dynamo effect of magnetohydrodynamics in stellar clouds.
8. Protoplanetary disk is glowing plasma driven by vortical column of vortrex caused by its stellar jet vortex of a newly formed star.
9. Satellite galaxy is induced by satellite galactic vortex of a main galactic vortex.
10. Star cluster are held together by strong interactions from electromagnetic vortices of stars in the weak vortical interactions of the galactic vortex.
11. Binary stars are revolving around each other in a common plasmatic shell that has merged from two stars.
12. Globular cluster is formed in the wake of a dissipated satellite galactic vortex.
13. Elliptical galaxy is formed in the wake of a dissipated galactic vortex.
14. Supernova is caused by an unwinding process in a precession driving the star to spin in opposite direction and thus expelling its viscous mass.
15. Planetary nebula is a consolidating diffused star wobbling in a precession with glowing plasma polar vortices pairs.
16. The brightness of star depends on electric current generated by dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamics of plasma.
17. The dust disk of star is induced by an outer layer huge stellar polar vortex.
18. Planetary nebula are formed by plasma polar vortex pairs of a consolidating diffused star.
19. The glowing spokes on dust disk of a star are satellite plasma vortices.
20. Sunspots are lower latitude singular vortices of photosphere.
21. Solar cycle is mainly caused by combined gravities of Jupiter and Saturn in their orbit interactions on photosphere of Sun.
22. The less prominent solar cycles are caused by planetary alignments of inner solar system planets with Sun and either Jupiter, or Saturn.
23. The reversal in direction of the magnetic field lines of a sunspot is caused by perturbation from Jupiter and Saturn.
24. A sunspot pair is a dual-core solar vortex that the cores are separated towards the surface.
25. Solar maximum of solar cycle is caused by combined gravities of aligned Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
26. Solar minimum of solar cycle occurs when position of Jupiter is perpendicular to the alignment of Sun and Saturn at the quarter phases.
27. Sunspot sprout on shifting latitude is caused by a precession effect on photosphere of Sun by gravity of Jupiter.
28. The inert dark center of a sunspot is caused by the void of vortex column that inhibits convection.
29. The long-lived corona holes on polar caps are polar vortices of photosphere.
30. Corona loops are satellite plasma vortices.
31. Corona mass ejection is caused by angular momentum in vortex column of a broken corona loop.
32. Solar wind is a steady stream of ionized gas spun from vortex column at high speed that has reached escape velocity at mid section of a corona loop.
33. The synchronized peaks for sunspot activities with aurora, storm and cyclone activities on Earth are caused by aligned Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
34. Gas tail of comet is a vortex formed in the coma of comet.
35. Dust tail of comet is formed by vortical reactions of the gas tail.
36. Planetary rings are flattened polar vortex pairs, or polar vortexes pair.
37. Cloud bands are formed by polar vortex pairs with vortex column opened to different extends.
38. The Great Red Spot, ovals and other storms are satellite vortices of polar vortices.
39. The inertia force drawing a lower latitude vortex towards polar region is caused by a relatively concave surface of viscous mass.
40. Polar aurora is induced by polar vortex of thermosphere.
41. The electromagnetic storm in the presence of an aurora is caused by the vortical reaction of vortex.
42. Ozone hole is caused by polar vortex inside its vortex column.
43. Antarctica ozone hole within the polar vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-moon precession cycles.
44. Ozone hole can be significantly affected by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
45. Ozone hole could not form at North Pole is as a result of land masses has weakened the intensity of the Arctic Polar Vortex.
46. Ozone hole with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken mesosphere into the vortex column.
47. Polar jet stream with significant differences in temperature at the boundaries of adjacent air masses is as a result of sunken atmosphere in the vortex column.
48. Polar jet stream is the vortrex at a bottom section of polar vortex flowing in closed streamlines at high speed in a loop.
49. Polar vortex can be significantly affected by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
50. Arctic Polar Vortex is embedded to Earth's rotation by effects of land masses.
51. Antarctica Polar Vortex wobbles in synchronization with the Earth-moon precession cycles.
52. Bow echo is driven by an atmospheric vortex of lower cloud level that is triggered by focused gravities of planetary alignments of a solar system alignment.
53. Tropical cyclone is induced by a lower latitude huge atmospheric clear air vortex.
54. Warm core of a tropical cyclone is as a result of sunken warmer stratosphere in the vortex column.
55. Storm surge is caused by vortrex of a huge atmospheric vortex with persistence circular momentum that has bounced off surface of water.
56. Tornado is driven by a large vortex formed on higher altitude.
57. Cold core of a tornado is as a result of sunken colder troposphere in the vortex column.
58. The upward spiraling jet of air stream in a tornado is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off a surface.
59. Supercell, tropical storm and thunderstorm are induced by atmospheric vortex.
60. Dust Devil is formed by vortical reactions of a clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the ground.
61. Dust storm is formed by vortical reactions of a huge cyclonic clear air vortex with a circular momentum that has bounced off the ground.
62. Singular vortex of molten matter can be formed underneath Earth's crust as a result of precession caused by planetary alignments.
63. Crater can be formed by vortex of molten matter.
64. The dual core in remnants of a crater is caused by a separating core of singular vortex towards the surface.
65. Earthquake can be triggered by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
66. Volcano eruption can be triggered by focused gravities of a solar system alignment.
67. The rotating and revolving speed of Earth and Sun are not constant in a vortical galactic period.
68. Focused gravities of a solar system alignment have significant effects on climate of Earth.
69. Spokes and spiral arms are satellite vortices on leading arcs of dilated harmonic vortices at different angular phase that cyclonically rotates around a vortical origin.
70. Lightning is caused by atmospheric vortex that has dynamo effect on bipolar molecules of water vapor that generates electrical charges.
71. Lightning is an electromagnetic vortices of electrodynamics with electrons tunneling in vacuum of the vortex column.
72. Lightning peaks in the noon is caused by solar wind from the Sun affecting the magnetosphere of Earth.
73. Gravity is fundamentally electromagnetic forces of different wavelengths. With credits to James Aaron Nicholson.
74. The geometrical structure of an atom is electromagnetic polar vortex pairs driven by cyclonical gravity field effect in a precession.
75. Electron shells are pause layers of equipotential surfaces of electrostatic spheroids with different electrical energy levels.
76. Strong nuclear force is the vortical culmination of EMF by the vortex column of an electromagnetic vortex at atomic level.
77. Weak nuclear force is the force dynamics on the accretion disk of the electromagnetic vortex at atomic level.
78. Electrons in atomic matters levitated on the plasmatic surfaces of electron shells are held by the strong nuclear force.
79. Electrons spin perpetually around its nucleus in its atomic orbitals on accretion disk is driven by the weak nuclear force.
80. Electrons are excited plasmoids in voids of electromagnetic satellite vortices at atomic level on surface of electron shells.
81. Strong interaction is the EMF culmination at the vortex column of a galactic electromagnetic vortex.
82. Gravity is the electromagnetic pressure repelling inside the magnetospheres pushing matters toward the core following an inverse-square law.
83. Stars in clusters are held together by the strong interaction of their electromagnetic vortex acting between stars.
84. Stars are held apart in their clusters by electrostatic repulsion of electric force between charges from their plasmatic spheroids.
85. Atmospheric layers are plasmatic spheroids of condensed viscous matter electrically charged to different electrical energy levels.
86. Atmospheric pause layers are the repulsive barriers of viscous mass between adjoining atmospheric layers.
87. Clouds are levitated on plasmatic surface of atmospheric layers by electrostatic repulsion.
88. Deep-ocean whirlpool clusters are triggered by focused gravities of a solar system alignment effect causing oceanic torque-free precession.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” - Galileo Galilei

In older times, when philosophy was the consensus for the objective study of nature where astrology was not separated from astronomy, the methodology adopted in theoretical physics such as deductive reasoning to prove mathematically has been an excellence tool for validity analysis to segregate realities from myths in those studies for science of that time. However, ever since mathematical physics has taken over the scene for modern science, theoretical physics for natural science has been discreetly sidetracked.

"I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians" - Richard Fenyman

An excerpt from "Cargo Cult Science", by Richard Feynman

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this -- it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person -- to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know the the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happened.

Nowadays, there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on a different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying -- possibly -- the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on -- with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using -- not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.

I looked up the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running the rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic example of cargo cult science.

Qualitative prediction is concerned with problems of building symbolic descriptions of processes, and using these descriptions for predicting a plausible continuation of these processes. It stresses the qualitative form of prediction as it does not seek precise characterization of future events, but rather a specification of plausible properties and constraints on the future events (Excerpts from CiteSeer).

* The above revolutionary discoveries and conjectures based on an unheard-of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity with radical ideas are unconventional and at fundamental stage that are bound to have shortcomings and loose ends, many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated and proven. Any term or statement if offensive in any manner or whatsoever is most regretted.

Ref:
Deductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inductive reasoning - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicolaus Copernicus heliocentrism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galileo's validity analysis on Venus - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural science - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theoretical physics - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia