Thread: A timid attempt to the Unifying understanding of Nature

Asking all for a hand of help to salvage what we can from this , the UPN .
Thank you all for your comments !

The Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) or the Universe explained without math ( aka the Grand Unifying Theory of Physics )


Motto : “ A single and most obvious Property of the Universe , a property that we can call the Fundamental Property or the Unifying Property , is simple enough that a ten year old can understand it and may reply ' Duh ! ' “ .

But don’t be surprised by its simplicity , it is exactly what most scientists and common sense are expecting : the Foundation is just one outrageously obvious fact of life , that Nothingness doesn’t exist and therefore Somethingness is replacing it !
Now you see why Nature is as simple as it can get , all there is involved are the abstract Nothingness and its counterpart – like an air tight cast – the real Somethingness , what ever that may be .
From only this element ( we can discard the abstract ‘void’ ) , the rest of the Nature/Universe’s Properties emerge fluently , unforced and … naturally .
We are lucky , the Universe is 100 % logic , no forced principles , so we have a very good chance to decipher it as long as we keep this trail of logic clean and multiple-checked . You are invited to participate and contribute further with your thoughts and ideas , after all it’s Our Universe …

The Fundamental Property ( ‘Law’ ) of Nature , aka the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) : Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) hence Somethingness ( whatever it may be ) is replacing it .

In other words , since Nothingness is not around and can not be created than something else must be present in its place .
This also implies ( and explains ) that since Nothingness can not be created ( absolute void ) than its counterpart , the Somethingness also can not be created nor destroyed further than its present existence . In other words , wherever Nothingness could be ‘ present ‘ ( abstractically ) the Somethingness already had replaced it , there is nothing more left . This confirms what we learned in high school , that “ Matter can not be created nor destroyed but only change state “ , the concept of both matter and mass conservation .
This also unifies the concept of ‘ space ‘ with Matter or Somethingness , hence ‘ space ‘ can not be a separate entity , it is the same and one with Somethingness filling whatever there is available around and forming the known Universe . Hence referring to ‘ space ‘ is the same as referring to ‘ matter ‘ , and therefore ‘ space ‘ can not be associated with void which - because it doesn’t exist - doesn’t occupy/has any space .
While this ‘space’ detail may appear trivial and obvious , it has a huge impact because it voids the present theory of Relativity by showing that Space can not be ‘stretched’ not ‘shrunk’ as the Relativity theory claims .

Now watch below how the rest of Nature’s Properties start appearing straight from this single Fundamental Unifying Property in a totally common-sense and un-forced way . Note how the whole structure is self supporting solely on the Fundamental Property , never needing math , formulas or even scientific experiments .

Logic and the Fundamental Unifying Property of Nature exist independent of observations hence , carefully , we can truly discover the Universe from our arm-chair , and sure enough , here we are doing it with success :

* The Stability of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : since Nothingness can not and doesn’t exist , than Somethingness will always be present in the amounts existing today ( and since for ever ) and therefore Somethingness can not be created , destroyed , disappear or be reduced to Nothingness ( which can not exist ) . Hence the fabric ( Somethingness ) of the Universe is Absolutely stable in amount and forever lasting , filling all the possible spaces already .
Hence there is no Expansion of the Universe and a Big Bang could not possibly be the Creation of the Universe .

* The Age and Future of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : because Nothingness doesn’t exist since For Ever ( beyond infinite ) and it will also non-exist For Ever , its counterpart , the Somethingness also exists since For Ever and also will exist For Ever . Hence we can conclude that the Universe has no beginning and no end on the time scale . This concludes that a Big Bang was not the creation of the Universe .

* The Size of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : since Nothingness is universal than its counterpart , the Somethingness is also universal and hence the Universe has no limits , its size is beyond infinity . Its size is better described by saying that it occupies everything that it is possible without leaving any empty spaces .

Is the Universe Expanding or changing size ? No , the Universe is Stationary ( see Logic Road # 5 derived from the Fundamental Law ) .

* The Micro Structure of Somethingness derived from the Fundamental Law : it has to be Fine/small enough in structure to occupy Every space in the Universe in order that Nothingness will not exist . Its fine structure has to go towards negative infinity but without completely disappearing ( nothingness doesn’t exist and can not be created ) .

* The Somethingness is a single component super-fluid like substance . Let’s call it the SuperFluid or just SF to replace the previous ‘ dark matter ’ and ‘ ether ’ ( see Logic Road # 7 derived from the Fundamental Property ) .

* The SuperFluid is Uncompressible ( and not Elastic nor plastic ) as derived from the Fundamental Property . This means that certain types of Vibrations will travel instantaneously across the Universe . Also it means that all pressure points occurring within the SuperFluid will be dispersed around uniformly in a 360 degrees sphere – just as electromagnetic waves are occurring ( see Logic Road # 8 ) .

* The SMAVs ( SuperFluid MAcro Vortices ) – what we call Black Holes – as a result of Property # 6 derived from the Fundamental Property , and how it spins the SuperFluid to form regular matter and energy that we can sense naturally or with technology . See Logic Road # 9 .

* Gravity explained , a wake or draft as a result of Property # 9 , the spinning of the SuperFluid in both Micro and Macro ( Black Holes ) vortices ( see Logic Road # 10 ) .

* The Speed of light and Faster ( see Logic Road # 11 ) .

* Atoms and sub-particles explained ( see Logic Road # 12 ) . Sub-particles as we know them are single micro vortices of spinning SuperFluid at the speed of light ( naturally ) . They were created by the SMAVs ( Black Holes ) , see Property # 9 .
The Atoms are vast arrangements of interlocking micro vortices of spinning SuperFluid . The larger the atom the larger the number of vortices involved . The shape of the structure formed by interlocking micro vortices can be determined using Fluid Dynamics .

* Magnetism , all atomic/nuclear forces , electricity , static electricity and all other phenomena involved in interactions : all are interacting micro vortices assembling in different shapes , sizes and spatial configurations .
Their interactions will depend on their relative spin direction leading to attraction or repulsion ( static electricity , magnetism ) .
The Harmonics generated by the wake of their spin creates magnetic and electrostatic fields .
The way micro vortices self-assemble via spins and wake interactions questions our picture of electrons : they may not be circling in orbits around a nucleus but be attached to it and just oscillating as they spin around their own axes at the speed of light .
A good approach would be to use Fluid Dynamics and computer models to see in what configuration micro vortices can self assemble and the properties of those structures .
Being able to handle and assemble individual micro vortices will enable intelligent species to create anything they need including food and perpetual life ( see my book ‘ Recipe for a Nation ‘ , future shocking ) .

Logic Roads towards understanding the foundation of Nature

Principle : thankfully , the Universe is 100 % Logic , therefore logic alone can decipher every detail and variations of what the Universe is and can be .
No math is necessary to understand it , common sense will do alone .

Ironic Confirmation of Understanding the Universe and its simplicity : we’ll be confident that we understand the Universe when we’ll be able to explain it to a ten year old in a half an hour or less … Are you practicing yet ?

# 5 Logic Road :
# 5 : Is the Universe Expanding or changing size ?

5-1 : ‘ Expanding ‘ means start occupying a different , foreign space that was not occupied before . This implies at least two different SuperFluid types ( one expanding into the other ) .
5-2 : However , what ever takes the place of Nothingness must behave the same ( like a SuperFluid , simple and able to fill any space available in the Universe ) .
5-3 : Since those properties of Somethingness ( SuperFluid ) are the same across the Universe and have the same function because it replaces the same Nothingness , it implies that there is only one type of fundamental SuperFluid , not more .
5-4 : Since the SuperFluid/matter can not be created any further than exists , and since it replaces Nothingness every where and since Nothingness also can not be created implies that the SuperFluid already occupies all the space there is in the Universe and since always . We can not create nor destroy matter , hence the its Amount is Fix , therefore there can not be an expansion nor a Big Bang .
5-5 : Conclusion : combining 5-3 and 5-4 it is clear that the Universe ( all that can exist without creating more ) is made of the same material ( SuperFluid ) which can not expend into itself , therefore the Universe is Stable and fix , not changing in size .
5-6 : Note : being fixed in size doesn’t imply a Border or Membrane because any material different than the SuperFluid can not exit so no border/limit can exist .
Further more , against our life experiences , the size and shape of the Universe is better described as “ All that there is and can be , beyond infinity “ .
This makes sense and slowly becomes accepted by our intelligence if we think of the Nothingness instead of its counterpart ( and replacement ) the Somethingness ( the SuperFluid ) : imagine an Universe filled by Nothingness and it’s easier to understand why an Unlimited size for the Universe is normal in order to fill in any spaces that could be occupied by Nothingness .
Of course , immediately we’ll remember that Nothingness doesn’t ( and can’t ) exist , so we’ll automatically replace it with the Somethingness ( the SuperFluid ) and therefore our minds will accept easier the concept of an endless Universe opposite to an infinite Nothingness ( absolute void ) .
5-7 : Note : the vast moving currents of SuperFluid within the Universe , carrying along stars and galaxies , is currently misinterpreted as an Expansion of the Universe .

# 7 Logic Road .
# 7 : is Somethingness ( aka SuperFluid ) a Fluid or a Structured ( granular ) substance ?

7-1 : let’s keep in perspective that we never encountered in real life a Perfect ( non-granular ) fluid . All fluids we know are granular , made of ( atoms/subparticles) individual vortices of Somethingness . So the fluids we know are only exhibits of vortices Behavior but not a representation of what the Somethingness it self is made of .
7-2 : I am starting by quoting the ad-hoc Property # 6 , a Property of Somethingness derived from the Fundamental Law : it has to be Fine/small enough in structure to occupy Every space in the Universe in order that Nothingness will not exist . Its fine structure has to go towards negative infinity but without completely disappearing ( nothingness doesn’t exist and can not be created ) .
7-3 : ‘granular’ implies
a) a structure ( a centre and the outer defining surface of the granule , doesn’t matter if the centre touches it ) .
b) The walls of the granules must fit to perfection to the walls of All the other surrounding granules in order to prevent Nothingness .
c) If a bulk of granules move than their walls must change instantaneously to keep fitting the neighboring granules in order to prevent Nothingness .
7-4 : Conclusion : considering the three points above - even though just point a) would have been enough – a Structure will Always be larger than a corresponding single component hence it can never be as small as the smallest possible Nothingness , hence the Fundamental Property ( ‘Law’ ) is broken .
Therefore the Somethingness must be non-granular but a super fluid without individual components .
Now we can add to the list Property # 7 of the Universe : the Somethingness is a single component super-fluid like substance . Let’s call it the SuperFluid or just SF to replace the previous ‘ Dark Matter ’ and ‘ ether ’ . Based on its properties , the SuperFluid moves and interacts according to known hydro-dynamic observed principles .

# 8 Logic Road :
# 8 : the SuperFluid is Uncompressible ( also it is not Elastic )

8-1 : Can not compress something that already occupies every space that exists in the Universe ( see the Unifying property ) simply because Absolute Void or Nothingness can not be created nor exists : compressing something that already occupies everything would leave behind some empty space , in other words would have to create either Nothingness or Somethingness – but the SuperFluid or Somethingness can not be created nor destroyed , same with Nothingness .
8-2 : As for Elasticity , an Universe expanding further than present would imply the creation of more SuperFluid/Space which contradicts the Fundamental Unifying Property .

# 9 Logic Road :
# 9 : The SMAVs ( SuperFluid MAcro Vortices ) or what we call Black Holes and the creation of regular matter

9-1 : According to the Fundamental Property of nature or the Universe ( the Unifying Property ) the SuperFluid has to occupy every space that exists because Nothingness – or absolute void – doesn’t exist . This means that the SuperFluid needs to be able to occupy spaces as small as negative infinite but not being able to disappear completely ( matter and SuperFluid can not be created nor destroyed ) . Hence it is correct to say that the smallest space that the SuperFluid can exist ( or occupy ) it will never be Zero but it will always be somewhat above Zero .
9-2 : Since Nothingness is not constrained by dimensions ( it doesn’t exists ) , it is correct to say that its dimensions will always be Zero .
9-3 : From 9-1 and 9-2 and Property # 2 ( both matter/void can not be created further than present , nor destroyed ) and Property # 6 ( the extreme fluidity of the SuperFluid needing to fill infinitely small spaces ) and since the smallest space the SuperFluid can occupy will never be Zero , it is clear that the smallest space that the SuperFluid is capable of filling it is a real Constant number , not what the negative infinite implies in math , i.e. a Changing number becoming smaller and smaller .
9-4 : If the SuperFluid would go to negative infinite and hence changing in order to fill smaller and smaller spaces ( that was not able to fill before ) it would also imply that Space ( which is SuperFluid/matter ) would be created in the process , something that would contradict the Fundamental Unifying Property of nature .
9-5 : Hence we can state with confidence that the Smallest space that exists ( filled by the SuperFluid ) , as small as it is , it has a Finite and Fixed size ( number ) . This is also a representation of how fine or Fluid the SuperFluid is ( a representation of what we call viscosity ) .
9-6 : Not being able to flow/occupy a space beyond/smaller than a fixed number ( which is higher than Zero ) and not being compressible means that the SuperFluid must Move continuously in order to avoid the creation of pockets of absolute-void ( or Nothingness ) . It can be visualized as how water spirals in the most minute gas bubbles to fill them up or like a continous simmering soup .

However , in the case of the SuperFluid the ‘ gas ‘ bubbles represent both the smallest space it can occupy ( always bigger than zero ) and its drive to occupy any void places , hence the spontaneous creation of this microscopical Perpetual Dynamo due to the difference in pressure ( SuperFluid Vs. almost absolute void ) , causing the micro motion of the SuperFluid ( Cosmic Background Radiation ) .
This is the only and the basic source of Energy in the Universe and the perpetual Engine that eventually and patiently creates Black Holes over millions of years .
This micro motion is very gentle ( as we observe it in deep space ) , it’s size approaching negative infinity , yet , just like Velcro , in huge numbers becomes space tornadoes , the Black Holes .
This micro movement of the SuperFluid is just another Property of nature derived from the Fundamental Unifying Property .
9-7 : This movement occurring at the smallest possible scale can be envisioned as a stirring or micro-bubbling process that the SuperFluid does continuously and since for ever .
9-8 : This movement it is the Dynamo that drives and gives the total available/existing energy to the Universe ( energy that can not be further created nor destroyed ) .
9-9 : This movement of the SuperFluid ( or quiescent , un-spun SuperFluid ) at the micro level it is the 4.3 ( ? ) degrees Kelvin observed as the omnipresent ‘temperature’ of the Universe , also known as the Cosmic Background Radiation .
9-10 : This on going movement ( stirring mostly in a spiral form ) of the SuperFluid at the micro level produces wakes in the SuperFluid mass which leads to the creation of larger aggregates of micro vortices , eventually creating the SuperFluid Mega Vortices , SMAVs , known as Black Holes .
9-11 : The size of the Black Holes can not exceed the minimum size that the SuperFluid can achieve as its fluidity approaches negative infinite yet never becoming zero . This implies that a very large Black Hole can not form but a number of micro Black Holes can aggregate and lead to vast volumes of tightly packed micro Black Holes , Mega Vortexes , with a net effect similar to just one large Black Hole . This Property is the one that actually is instrumental in giving us birth , by spinning the SuperFluid .
9-12 : the SuperFluid Spinning action : keep in mind that the individual size of those micro Black Holes approaches negative infinity , they are like Virtual Points , and it is that size that forces the uncompressible SuperFluid to zoom through without being able to stop or decelerate : the SuperFluid being forced by the collective mega vortex to converge towards the centre and the Black Hole(s) like through a narrowing funnel , gets spun and accelerated close to the speed of light before it storms through the micro Black Hole that it is so small that the SuperFluid has no time to slow down . As a result , spun even faster as it passes through the Black Hole , the SuperFluid gets eject through the other side as a variety of micro vortices spinning at the speed of light representing the foundation of matter and energy as we observe it .
9-13 : Those micro vortices of SuperFluid churn the surrounding SuperFluid and actually puling it through just like a fan would draw in air . The maximum amount of SuperFluid that those micro vortices can pull through is , naturally , directly proportional to their speed of rotation .
In nature this speed is that of light so if the spin of a vortices is aligned with its axial direction of moving , the linear speed of the vortices can reach the speed of light . Under this condition increasing the spin of the vortices will enable them to move proportionally faster than the speed of light .

# 10 Logic Road :
# 10 : Gravity explained , a wake or draft created by both the Micro-Vortices and Macro ( Black Holes ) SuperFluid vortices

10-1 : At both levels ( Micro and Macro ) the spinning of the SuperFluid creates natural wakes ( or drafts ) that represent Gravity as we know it .
Just as in water , two vortices close to each other will eventually merge , attracted by each other’s draft ( wake ) .
The power of this action is proportional with both the speed and number of the aggregated vortices and we observe it best when created by what we call ‘matter’ , now known as spinning SuperFluid at the speed of light .
10-2 : Arranging micro-vortices in a material to cancel each other’s wakes and the surrounding wakes , will cancel ( defeat ) gravity for that object ( antigravity ) .
10-3 : Since the wake movement depends on the rotational speed of the micro-vortices , the propagation of the Gravity wake ( wave ) can vary in both speed and strength .

# 11 Logic Road :
# 11 : the Speed of Light and Faster

11-1 : Matter , as spinning SuperFluid vortices , churns the quiescent SuperFluid like both a cork-screw and a fan sucking air . It churns the SuperFluid at the speed of its vortex rotation , which is the speed of light ( creating Gravity , as a wake/draft , in the process ) .
11-2 : If a vortex moves in a linear direction the position of the vortex’ intake will affect the moving speed of the vortex since it can churn through only a certain amount of quiescent SuperFluid , an amount determined by the vortex’ speed .
11-3 : Aligning the vortex intake with the forward linear movement of the vortex will allow the vortex to achieve a maximum speed based on the maximum amount of SuperFluid that it can absorb through ( churn through ) .
Therefore a natural vortex spinning at the speed of light , once aligned , will be able to churn the SuperFluid at the speed of light . Hence for such a vortex the maximum linear speed achievable would be the speed of light provided that its intake and forward linear movement are aligned .
11-4 : Observing natural phenomena occurring at the speed of light ( such as photons ) means that those vortices – photons – are created ( spun ) naturally in such way that the vortex intake is aligned with the vortex linear motion , enabling that vortex to move linearly at the speed of light .
11-5 : Increasing artificially the speed of a vortex above the speed of light will enable that vortex to move linearly ( provided that its intake is aligned with the direction of travel ) at a speed proportionally higher , exceeding the speed of light.

# 12 Logic Road :
# 12 : Atoms and Sub Particles , matter and energy as we observe it

12-1 : Property # 9 creates micro vortices in the SuperFluid . Those vortices are the fundamental part of Matter and Energy as we can sense it directly or with technologies .
12-2 : those micro vortices spinning at the speed of light will assemble themselves following Fluid Dynamics principles . Those assemblies will form sub particles and atoms .
12-3 : the type of micro vortices generated by SMAVs ( Property # 9 ) is influenced by the Fluid Dynamics conditions present at the time of spin initiation ( creation of the micro vortices ) . They can be ( at least ) Matter or Energy type of micro vortices .
12-4 : the Energy type of micro vortices are generated ( created , spun ) such as their linear movement is aligned with their vortex intake , enabling them to move at the speed of light ( photons , electromagnetic radiation ) .
12-5 : their interactions will depend on their relative spin direction leading to attraction or repulsion ( static electricity , magnetism ) .

The source of Energy in the Universe , a characteristic of the SuperFluid that also creates black-holes :

As the SuperFluid ( SF ) fills in any space available in the Universe it has to be able to do so at the most microscopic levels , no spaces would be left ‘void’ since Nothingness doesn’t exist . This property of the SuperFluid of being extremely fluent causes an instability in its mass making it to actually flow spontaneously into itself .

As the SF fills smaller and smaller spaces those volumes shrink towards negative infinity yet without disappearing ( can not destroy or make Somethingness / SuperFluid / matter vanish ) .
Such an infinitely low viscosity ( yet present ) is like having slippery fingers that you try to keep together but keep sliding , or like an extremely fine knife edge that it is impossible to keep steady and balance without moving it from side to side .
Those are comparisons to give the feel of the instability characteristic of the SuperFluid due to its extreme fluency or low viscosity , causing it to flow into itself at the micro level , a micro stirring effect that agitates the SF continuously .

The side effect is what we consider Energy .
Energy is movement and as you seen above , the entire SuperFluid is in a continous agitation due to its micro super-viscous instability .
This energy , as small as it is , adds up and it is observed as the Cosmic Background Radiation , an indication and confirmation of the micro turmoil that the SuperFluid is :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/penwil.html

“ … Finding no explanations for the origin of the noise, they finally concluded that it was indeed coming from space, but that it was the same from all directions. It was a distribution of microwave radiation which matched a blackbody curve for a radiator at about 2.7 Kelvin. … “ .

This state of the SuperFluid also tells us that Absolute Zero temperature can not exist .

But this micro agitation/movement/energy happening continuously since forever in the endless existence of the Universe , had time and combinational chances to either cancel each other’s neighbour or synchronize and form larger and growing disturbances .
Eventually but not always , a larger disturbance gets to form over time and we can have a Black-hole or a star .
The fact that we observe galaxies separated by vast ‘empty’ spaces tells us that the chances of having such synchronized by chances turbulences forming larger disturbances ( black holes ) is , as logic expects , extremely small .
Proof of the micro-turbulence and Vortices occurring in a SuperFluid and of its extreme low viscosity is provided here by the Quantum research at the University of Newcastle ( notice how they used the same analogy as I did to picture the behaviour of the SuperFluid by filling an extremely small volume of space ) :

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/math/research/a...ssic_fluid.htm

“ … At temperatures close to absolute zero, a phase transition called Bose-Einstein condensation takes place, in which quantum mechanics 'takes over' and rules the behaviour at macroscopic scales. Superfluidity is a consequence of Bose-Einstein condensation, and occurs in liquid helium, ultra-cold atomic gases and neutron stars. The striking property of a superfluid is that it can move without any viscous effects. Since it suffers no friction, a superfluid can flow freely through infinitesimal holes, move around a closed loop forever, and climb up the walls of its container. Research in this area is mainly concerned with solitons and vortices in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, and with quantised vortices in superfluid liquid (quantum turbulence). … “ .

But what it is also very important is the fact that free , clean , reusable energy is bathing us 24/7 . Now that we know how it works we can design the device that extracts this energy making it available for our use .
Spread the message !

The UPN literary description

We can imagine the micro-vortices as micro tornados but spinning almost at the speed of light through the surrounding SuperFluid ( SF ) , churning it and creating a wake or draft just like a spinning fan or water vortex , a phenomenon that we call … gravity .
Also watching under water vortices ( generate by boat propellers ) would be a close approximation for better visualisation of micro vortices .

But how such a super fine fluid like what makes up the Universe ( and that we can observe in deep space ) can feel as hard as diamonds and carbon steel ?
The answer is in speed . For example , compare hitting the surface of water at 100 kilometres per hour , a hard hit , versus at the speed of light , 330,000 Km/Second , quite a differences wouldn’t you say … That makes the ephemeral SuperFluid micro vortices extremely hard . Add to it their huge numbers present in particle formation ( same principle as in Velcro , numbers count ) and now diamonds are possible , maybe even stronger materials .

About speed and black-holes : as the SuperFluid plunges through the tiny virtual point that we call ‘black holes’ it gets spun forming micro vortices that represent energy and matter .
This exit speed ( known to us as light speed ) is the fastest Natural spin . Its natural limit is due to the viscosity and incompressibility of the SuperFluid.

The property of the SuperFluid of being Uncompressible limits the linear speed of micro-vortices ( micro vortices = SuperFluid that is spinning , the smallest/basic particle , a component of a quark and smaller yet ) .

But the same property of SuperFluid of being Uncompressible also tells us that INSTANT signalling through the SuperFluid is ( at least theoretically ) possible !

For a vortex ( particle ) to move through the SuperFluid it does so by Churning it as opposed to staying as a separate chunk/mass of SuperFluid and so if the direction of its spin is aligned with the direction of travel than what limits the linear speed of the vortex is its own spin : imagine the spinning vortex ( tornado ) positioned/aligned such as its front sucks in the incoming SuperFluid and than ‘spits’ it out through the back/other end/exit of the vortex .
Obviously , the faster the vortex spins ( hence more SuperFluid can be ‘sucked’ through ) , the faster the linear speed of the vortex so Yes , if we build a space craft using advanced nanobots we can align All the vortices properly and enable the ensemble to travel at the speed of light .
Further , with this alignment , if we can increase the rotational speed of vortices we can travel faster than the speed of light .
Naturally all vortices will eventually slow down hence a wide discussion about being able to detect them . But this possibility has other consequences like explaining what scientists today refer as ‘ missing ‘ dark-matter :

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

“ … Dutch astronomer Jan Oort first discovered the 'missing matter' problem in the 1930's ... But when the calculation was made, it turned out that there was not enough mass in the galaxy. And the discrepancy was not small; the galaxy had to be at least twice as massive as the sum of the mass of all its visible components combined. Where was all this missing matter? … “ .

Now we know .

Naturally , since the vortices only churn the SuperFluid it is conceivable to imagine a parallel world who’s vortices speed is ( let’s say ) half of ours and Share the same SuperFluid churning it too , like two waves that temporarily overlap but after they carry on .

Or we can imagine vortices that may spin at twice our speed , a product of super advanced alien species .

Another experiment that is a breeze to explain using the UPN is the double slit light ( photons ) interference which UPN describes as the micro-vortices interference .

Indeed , the UPN addresses the famous Duality of particles using the micro-vortices spinning the SuperFluid at some 98 % of the speed of light therefore being both individual units ( particles ) and , of course , waves , explaining the observed Duality in particles :

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/q...nics-1020.html

“ … The wave-particle duality is best illustrated by a canonical experiment in quantum mechanics that’s generally referred to as the two-slit, or two-hole, experiment. As the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman ’39 once put it, “Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, ‘You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It’s the same thing.’ ” .

About Gravity , here is a scan showing Earth anomalies :

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/06...in_high_r.html

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11d.htm

The possibility that the SuperFluid is Uncompressible means that it is possible to listen and send vibrations instantaneously across the Entire infinite Universe ! AKA , knowing everything in real-time .

Next we’ll decipher more Properties and we’ll be able to accurately describe all known phenomenon and more , the question being “ how soon the scientific community will take over ? “ because I do not have any resources , a lab nor super-computers …

Validating the UPN by super-computer rendering/simulations

Variables built in the simulation :

1) the properties of the SuperFluid , SF ( each slightly variable , besides nil ) :
- viscosity ( towards small infinite or nil )
- uncompressible ( or yes )
- inelastic ( or yes and variable range )
- un-plastic ( or yes )

2) the micro-vortices of spinning SuperFluid :
- spin direction
- actual rotational speed as 90 to 99 % of the speed of light
- shape of the vortices
- methods of self attaching similar to covalent or ionic bonds ( vortices lock or just riding the neighbour's wake ) .
- the resulting individual and collective spinning Wake of the SuperFluid , wake that we call gravity , and its Harmonics creating Magnetic and Electrostatic fields ( wakes in the SF ) .

Varying the above properties , the computer may show spontaneous association/bonding/connecting of the micro-vortices ( by the thousands ) to form sub-particles , atoms and molecules , and by doing so Validating the Unifying Properties of Nature ( UPN ) .

Watch for the Harmonics . As the SuperFluid and micro-vortices properties are tuned just right , when the micro-vortices join the combined/resultant wave Wake in the SF , will suddenly appear as a Harmonic forming the magnetic and Electrostatic fields and forces , a natural resultant of SuperFluid hydro dynamics under the governance of the SF and micro-vortices properties .
All we need now is a super-computer to render/simulate the SF , the micro-vortices and their interactions forming subparticles , particles , atoms and molecules , the entire possibilities of the Universe ...

And all this just from the simple and trivial fact that Nothingness does not exist so Somethingness must replace it … QED .

The UPN determines the existence of a fundamental single element as the entire and sole foundation of the Universe . This element is the SuperFluid .

Here is another confirmation of its validity :

" ... A problem which is receiving increasing attention is the observed similarity between quantum turbulence and turbulence in classical fluids. See the Quantum Fluids Group web pages for more information. ... " .

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/math/research/a...ssic_fluid.htm

Doru D.

I just added this from the University of Newcastle to point the inherited/natural turbulances/vortices in the SuperFluid :

Proof of the micro-turbulence and Vortices occurring in a SuperFluid and of its extreme low viscosity is provided here by the Quantum research at the University of Newcastle ( notice how they used the same analogy as I did to picture the behaviour of the SuperFluid by filling an extremely small volume of space ) :

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/math/research/a...ssic_fluid.htm

“ … At temperatures close to absolute zero, a phase transition called Bose-Einstein condensation takes place, in which quantum mechanics 'takes over' and rules the behaviour at macroscopic scales. Superfluidity is a consequence of Bose-Einstein condensation, and occurs in liquid helium, ultra-cold atomic gases and neutron stars. The striking property of a superfluid is that it can move without any viscous effects. Since it suffers no friction, a superfluid can flow freely through infinitesimal holes, move around a closed loop forever, and climb up the walls of its container. Research in this area is mainly concerned with solitons and vortices in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, and with quantised vortices in superfluid liquid (quantum turbulence). … “ .

But what it is also very important is the fact that free , clean , reusable energy is bathing us 24/7 . Now that we know how it works we can design the device that extracts this energy making it available for our use .

Any one can describe the Device considering that the the SUperFLuid is more like a current . The funy thing is that the boat and all are also made of the SF ... so How would you get an interaction , momentum ?

Do you really expect anyone to read through that wall of text with no preface?

I read the first two paragraphs

It would be very helpful if you could make a concise, albeit detailed, summary of your ideas without any unneccessary rambling.

Sorry , I thought you want to have the whole thing with details in order to judge it better ( I was already feeling bad for not using any math ) .

Here is the short version :

The Universe is a SuperFluid and we all are spinning SuperFluid .

The presented logic thread in the UPN leads to the conclusion that the 'fabric' of the Universe is a Super Fluid like element that exhibits the known properties of extremely low viscosity and spontaneos turbulances or vortices ( see links ) .

Those turbulances/vortices , over time , may occur synchronized and can join to form black-holes ( similar to a water vortices joining into a bigger one ) which in turn spin the SuperFluid at the speed of light in micro-vortices that represents the foundation of subparticles and the known matter and energy .

The UPN explains gravity as a weake in the SuperFluid created by spinning micro-vortices ( which when assembled form subparticles , particles and atoms each generating its own characteristic weake ) .

The UPN explains further the Cosmic Background Radiation , the age and size of the Universe , it shows there was no Big Bang , it shows faults with the theory of Relativity , it proves that 'space' can not be shrunk nor expended ( stretched ) , it proves the Universe is far older than we thought at best , it describes the source of Energy that we observe in the Universe , and shows the magnetic/electric fields as harmonics of the weakes generated by micro-vortices .

So the entire Universe is a SuperFluid , nothing else , yet alone it explains everything , we all are spinning SuperFluid , micro tornadoes spinning almost at the speed of light .

See some of the consequences , like being uncompressible , certain vibration can be transmitted by the SF instantaneous ... real-time communication over light-years distances , the sub-space described in Star Treck .

Enjoy the other 'side-effects' described in the UPN .
Please try hard to find anything that I missed or is just plain wrong ( please explain your point or it will not be possible to consider it , Thank you ! ) .

Cheers

I have read just several parts of the text. But at first sight this is one example of what is bad about it:

Originally Posted by Urod

While this ‘space’ detail may appear trivial and obvious , it has a huge impact because it voids the present theory of Relativity by showing that Space can not be ‘stretched’ not ‘shrunk’ as the Relativity theory claims .

Special theory of relativity is very well experimentally established. So people have certainly seen many times the ‘stretched’ or ‘shrunk’ space as the Relativity theory claims, or consequences of it.
Thus you can forget your UPN.

Originally Posted by Particlonist

I have read just several parts of the text. But at first sight this is one example of what is bad about it:

Originally Posted by Urod

While this ‘space’ detail may appear trivial and obvious , it has a huge impact because it voids the present theory of Relativity by showing that Space can not be ‘stretched’ not ‘shrunk’ as the Relativity theory claims .

Special theory of relativity is very well experimentally established. So people have certainly seen many times the ‘stretched’ or ‘shrunk’ space as the Relativity theory claims, or consequences of it.
Thus you can forget your UPN.

You can look at the results of an experiment and try to explain it to suit a certain way you understand the Universe .
For starters , let me take you to task and asking you to explain what happens to the streched space , it became 'thiner' ? Or it creates matter or space to compensate for it ?
Keep in mind your problem , Stretxhed or Shrunk it is Not the same with Normal space . So , please tell us , What is the difference ??

P.S. I am realy glad that you took the time to write , I need more like you to bring forward the presrnt misunderstandings .
( Please forgive spelling )

Looking forward to your reply explaining how stretched and shrunk 'space' differ from the normal one .

Best regards ,
Urod

Originally Posted by Particlonist

I have read just several parts of the text. But at first sight this is one example of what is bad about it:

Originally Posted by Urod

While this ‘space’ detail may appear trivial and obvious , it has a huge impact because it voids the present theory of Relativity by showing that Space can not be ‘stretched’ not ‘shrunk’ as the Relativity theory claims .

Special theory of relativity is very well experimentally established. So people have certainly seen many times the ‘stretched’ or ‘shrunk’ space as the Relativity theory claims, or consequences of it.
Thus you can forget your UPN.

Well , apperantly you didn't tell us the whole story about thye theory of Relativity ( just the neme Relativity should raise a red flag , Nature is not Relative , it's just One ) .
Can you please explain what's wrong with what those people brought forward Against the theory of Relativity ?
http://www.anti-relativity.com/intro.htm
Though Einstein is, of course, is credited with the origination of the Theory of Relativity, history seems to indicate that Einstein was actually more its assembler than creator. ( Einstein The Irrational Plagiarist)

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -Albert Einstein

He said it not me ...

Here is more to keep you busy :
Though Einstein is, of course, is credited with the origination of the Theory of Relativity, history seems to indicate that Einstein was actually more its assembler than creator. ( Einstein The Irrational Plagiarist)

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -Albert Einstein
Today (1999) the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein is still a generally accepted theory. Although there have been raised a number of objections against the theory since its first publication in 1905, none of these have been able to convince the scientific community of the falsity of the theory.

On philosophical, mathematical and empirical grounds, there are nevertheless many valid objections against the theory to be found. This article focuses on two of these, in an analysis of a popular derivation of the Lorentz transformation according to the theory of special relativity and by means of a philosophical argument showing a contradiction between the two postulates of special relativity.

Good Luck Particlonist , you will need it because UPN proves that you can not separate space from the real space , unlike the imaginary one Einstein promoted .

Please reply , Thank you !

Cheers ,

Urod

sounds like aether, the "superfluid"? You know that was abandoned a hundred odd years ago?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

sounds like aether, the "superfluid"? You know that was abandoned a hundred odd years ago?

It only sounds like the ether , but look carefull , it is different .

The Michelson experiment is useless in the UPN .

Thank you for your comment , please point to any thing else that it may appear weird .

Cheers

Originally Posted by Urod

Thank you for your comment , please point to any thing else that it may appear weird .

This bit here.

The Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) or the Universe explained without math ( aka the Grand Unifying Theory of Physics )
<down to>... so How would you get an interaction , momentum ?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Urod

Thank you for your comment , please point to any thing else that it may appear weird .

This bit here.

The Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) or the Universe explained without math ( aka the Grand Unifying Theory of Physics )

<down to>... so How would you get an interaction , momentum ?

First of all , please make sure to read the UPN first , realy , it's not complicated at all .
As you'll see there we all are spinning SuperFluid , and the interactions , force , energy , momentum comes from the natural property of a SuperFluid to flow into itself which appears to our instruments as micro-vortices .
This inherited , built-in side-effect of a SuperFluid represents what we consider Energy ( movement ) .

This is shown in experiments already done and approved , see the links provided in the UPN refering to the Bose-Einstein condensate and alway to something even more recent ( Science magazine , April 2011 ) :

Abstract
We introduce a comprehensive theoretical framework for the fermionic superfluid dynamics, grounded on a local extension of the time-dependent density functional theory. With this approach, we describe the generation and the real-time evolution and interaction of quantized vortices, the large-amplitude collective modes, as well as the loss of superfluidity at high flow velocities. We demonstrate the formation of vortex rings and provide a microscopic description of the crossing and reconnection of quantized vortex lines in a fermion superfluid, which provide the mechanism for the emergence of quantum turbulence at very low temperatures. We observe that superfluidity often survives when these systems are stirred with velocities far exceeding the speed of sound.

Received for publication 21 December 2010.
Accepted for publication 11 April 2011.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1288.abstract

Please enjoy reading the UPN but no speed reading :

The UPN explains without math :

- the single component , the SuperFluid ( SF ) , a non-granular , continuos substance
- exciting possibilities from one property of the SF , that of being uncomressaible , meaning instant messaging over , well , the entire Universe , as crazy that it may sound . This it may also explain ‘inertia’
- the double slit experiment , the Duality particle-wave , aka the foundation of Quantum physiscs
- the age and size of the Universe
- the properties of the SuperFluid
- it shows that ‘space’ is SuperFluid (SF ) and hence it can not be Stretched nor Shrunked , therefore invalidating the theory of Relativity
- explains the Cosmic Background Radiation
- takes the glamor of gravity , its just a wake in the SF generated by the spinning of each micro-vortices ( matter )
- shows the ‘missing’ matter , it’s slowed down micro-vortices , very old and spinning slower due to the SF viscosity ( as small as that may be )
- explains ‘particles’ : micro-vortices spinning at close to the speed of light ( in young particles ) , churning the SF ( similar to water vortices or tornados )
- shows howe harmonics of the gravity wakes are the magnetic and electric fields
- explains what forms the micro-vortices ( matter and energy )
- explains how black-holes form
- shows how the perpetual dynamo and the source of endless , clean , renewable energy that is bathing us 24/7 , has its origins built in the nature of the SuperFluid , continuously under micro-agitation creating vortices , movement that is energy .
- the UPN is so simple that a ten year old could understand it , a fact that chipped my self-estime being much older
- and finally , the UPN doesn’t need any math to prove it nor express it .

If you like my thought on this then please have the confidence to spend the time reading the Recipe for a Nation ( link below ) and the three essays posted on the same site , it’s both future shocking and mind envigorating :

- It's 20:11 , do you know where your Earth is ? , the climate essay
- the Advanced Alien Super Specie , the drfeam prison essay
- thye UPN ( original link and updates )

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.com , future shocking .

Here is more recent experiments that support the UPN , from Science , this April 2011 :

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1288.abstract

" ... Abstract

Real-Time Dynamics of Quantized Vortices in a Unitary Fermi Superfluid

We introduce a comprehensive theoretical framework for the fermionic superfluid dynamics, grounded on a local extension of the time-dependent density functional theory. With this approach, we describe the generation and the real-time evolution and interaction of quantized vortices, the large-amplitude collective modes, as well as the loss of superfluidity at high flow velocities. We demonstrate the formation of vortex rings and provide a microscopic description of the crossing and reconnection of quantized vortex lines in a fermion superfluid, which provide the mechanism for the emergence of quantum turbulence at very low temperatures. We observe that superfluidity often survives when these systems are stirred with velocities far exceeding the speed of sound.

Received for publication 21 December 2010.
Accepted for publication 11 April 2011. " .

This tip of the day send to me by Dalius proves that energy ( movement ) is a side effect of the SuperFuid , to us is a big deal but , of course , for the SF is banal , ‘energy’ means nothing to it , it’s just a natural phenomenon.

Those turbulances , synchronized and surviving the sorounding agittation , coalescing/merging can lead to forming black holes over time as described in the UPN , which will spin the SF into us , micro-vortices , and also provide Movement ( spinning ) hence Energy ( see nuclear blasts ) .

Here is a bonus , LOL , for today that almost became a thread : my aching tooth , the Solar X-ray flux and the UPN .

In short I documented how a two decade slight tooth injury becames achy onlly when the sun X-ray flux goes to slightly 10 minus 6 Watts/Sq.Meter .
Naturally the UPN shows that indeed my tooth is connected not only to the sun mass but also it is bathing in the same wakes/waves/disturbances like the entire solar system and our whole galaxy .

As this is correct , it also worries me , because I have terrible feelings about the coming future regarding the human specie . No I am not religious , except if you call UPN one .

Bonus two : " a Coin in the fountain " : let me coin the term " Fundamental Vortices " refering to the spontaneus forming of vortices in the SuperFluid , and to differentiate it from the micro-vortices ( us ) spun by black-holes .
Hence the Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) are the Perpetual Dynamos generating the Motion ( energy ) that can occur synchronized and merge to form larger disturbances and eventually black-holes that in turn spin the SuperFluid to create matter ( micro-vortices ) and a lot of Movement ( energy ) .

Cheers

Looking forward to your reply
Please reply , Thank you !

You are kind. I am going to reply.

Your text seem to me like the best criticism of science and especially physics I have seen, Urod. Well, it works like criticism of science.

Relativity is not the main problem. There are problems all over the somethingness of your text.

It's too vague, everything. You use terms with vague meaning. And then argumentation so vague that you can prove everything you desire.

Some example:

Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) hence Somethingness ( whatever it may be ) is replacing it .

How do you measure Nothingness or Somethingness? You have to say, specify what are you talking about before you start to talk about it unless it is a well known term.

Reading your text works like a screwdriver in brain (all the illogical arguments mixed with absurd terms). I am really confused from it.

So these would be some other bad things about it.

On the other hand, I don't really like when people undervalue or even discard intuitive argumentation thinking that doing physics means to solve equations. Look at for example Feynman lecture 16 volume 2 Induced Currents. It is an excellent piece of physics and there is not a single equation through the whole lecture. The difference is in the fact that Feynman uses well defined terms every good physicist understands well. He is vague where he needs to and exact where he needs to in the right way.

I could give less vague specification why such arguments are good and yours are bad (but it is not for 3 minutes, because I would have to do it carefully). Feynman would refer to some "reasonability" but it is possible to specify it in a better way.

(unmark the Disable BBCode in this post in your following replies, because you have prohibited quoting, or how to say it

Cheers

Originally Posted by "Particlonist
Relativity is not the main problem. There are problems all over the somethingness of your text.

It's too vague, everything. You use terms with vague meaning. And then argumentation so vague that you can prove everything you desire.

Some example:
[quote

Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) hence Somethingness ( whatever it may be ) is replacing it .

How do you measure Nothingness or Somethingness? You have to say, specify what are you talking about before you start to talk about it unless it is a well known term.
[/quote]

From your reply this is the only precisse question .
My answer :
1) How do you measure Nothingness ? Are you kidding me ? Nothigness doesn't exist ... did you read the UPN ?
2) How do you measure Somethingness ? If you would have red the UPN you would refer to Somethigness by now as it is described in the UPN , as the SuperFluid .

In the UPN you will see how we all are made of the SuperFluid , that it is Not granular , that it has an infinitely small viscosity which produce the Fundamental Vortices a movement that represents energy .
So , what would you like to measure ?

Please , I like bouncing ideas with you , but please first non-speed read the UPN , than we can be more productive .

Best regards ,

...
There is no reason to study such UPNs, when you can find lots of literature, which treats the same problems with several important differences.

1) They are precise, not precisse, but precise. By means of perfect logic.
2) They are accepted all over the world in universities.
3) You don't need any aetheric superfluids or spining whatever to explain the related phenomena.

Let us stick a screwdriver (no speed sticking) in brain for a while.

The Fundamental Property ( ‘Law’ ) of Nature , aka the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) : Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) hence Somethingness ( whatever it may be ) is replacing it .

Starting with a nonsense. Vague statement with rather no meaning. Author does not have need to define terms by consideration of experiments.

In other words , since Nothingness is not around and can not be created than something else must be present in its place .

Adding a second UPN2 like it was the first one. Because of course in the UPN we did not say that Nothingness can not be created, so this is another assumption of the screwdriver.

This also implies ( and explains ) that since Nothingness can not be created ( absolute void ) than its counterpart , the Somethingness also can not be created nor destroyed further than its present existence .

Adding a third UPN3 like it was the first one. Because of course in the UPN we did not say that Nothingness should in some way be similar in behaviour to the Somethingness (whatever it may be or not be), so this is another assumption of the screwdriver.

In other words , wherever Nothingness could be ‘ present ‘ ( abstractically ) the Somethingness already had replaced it , there is nothing more left .

Creating some confusions. As it was possible to replace thing which does not exist according to UPN.

This confirms what we learned in high school , that “ Matter can not be created nor destroyed but only change state “ , the concept of both matter and mass conservation .

Seems like we try to tell the reader what are we talking about. That Somethingness is matter.

This also unifies the concept of ‘ space ‘ with Matter or Somethingness , hence ‘ space ‘ can not be a separate entity , it is the same and one with Somethingness filling whatever there is available around and forming the known Universe .

Incomprehensible screwdriver poetry. We did not say anything about space, surprisingly we are unifying space with matter.

End of screwdriver, reader is dead.

The Fundamental Property ( ‘Law’ ) of Nature , aka the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) : Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) hence Somethingness ( whatever it may be ) is replacing it .

Starting with a nonsense. Vague statement with rather no meaning. Author does not have need to define terms by consideration of experiments.

A : You do not need experiments to prove that Nothigness doesn't exist .
How , therefore , reality can be , as you say , nonsense ??
Further , you just quoted the very begining of the UPN , would you like to mention as well there is More following , things like ... explanation and defining of terms ( such as SuprFluid replacing the general term Somethingness ) .
Are you being fair ? Or misleading ?

---------------------

In other words , since Nothingness is not around and can not be created than something else must be present in its place .

Adding a second UPN2 like it was the first one. Because of course in the UPN we did not say that Nothingness can not be created, so this is another assumption of the screwdriver.

A : it's not a second UPN , the Somethingness is present in the UPN , you just quoted it above , look !! You can't forget That fast !
Further , do you need to be told that Nothigness ( complete void ) can not be created ?

-----------------

This also implies ( and explains ) that since Nothingness can not be created ( absolute void ) than its counterpart , the Somethingness also can not be created nor destroyed further than its present existence .

Adding a third UPN3 like it was the first one. Because of course in the UPN we did not say that Nothingness should in some way be similar in behaviour to the Somethingness (whatever it may be or not be), so this is another assumption of the screwdriver.

A: it is not another UPN , it is a Property Derived form the UPN , you need to read more carefully .
Further more , Nothingness can not 'behave' because it doesn't exist , if you don't believe than please accept and spent my ten dollar donation to you ! In the UPN Nothingness is used as a learning tool and contrast to Somethigness for easier understanding .

_______________

In other words , wherever Nothingness could be ‘ present ‘ ( abstractically ) the Somethingness already had replaced it , there is nothing more left .

Creating some confusions. As it was possible to replace thing which does not exist according to UPN.

A: The word 'abstractically' is right there , how can you miss it ! Nothigness is used as a tool for easier understanding , that's why the word 'abstracally' is used for Nothigness .
How can you get confused by the absence of Nothigness and the presence of Somethigness ?? Too many screwdrivers ?

-------------------------------

This also unifies the concept of ‘ space ‘ with Matter or Somethingness , hence ‘ space ‘ can not be a separate entity , it is the same and one with Somethingness filling whatever there is available around and forming the known Universe .

Incomprehensible screwdriver poetry. We did not say anything about space, surprisingly we are unifying space with matter.

A: Matter as we see it is spun SuperFluid ( micro-vortices ) , obviously you didn't get that far in reading the UPN , and that explains your general confussion .
After you will read the UPN you will not be surprised that space and the SuperFluid are the same .
The SuperFluid is the Universe , hence is the space as we can also call it .
I brought this up because some people believe that space/SuperFluid can be stretched or shrunk , the UPN shows it is impossible , and by doing so it invalidates the theory of Relativity .

Thank you Particlonist for your great contribution to science by proving that you must read Carefuly something before understanding it !

BTW , try to replace that screwdriver you're using , it seems a ' flat head ' or too much Vodka

--------------------

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.com , future shocking

Let's regroup fuys , there is too much negativity here and all is because speed reading or not at all the UPN , so let;s do it right .

The begining of the Universe :

Was it Void/Nothigness or Somethigness ?

1) We can't have/make anything out of Nothigness
2) Looking around us to test proof the next logic line we observe the Universe , hence observing Somethigness
3) Conclusion :
a) Nothigness could not possibly be the begining or the origin of the Universe .
b) Therefore the very begining of the Universe ( if there is a begining ) was by defaul made out of Somethingness which was the very first to appear ( unless there since for-ever as the UPN shows ) .

Not a biggy , simple common sense , but it kick-starts the UPN that uses Nothigness as a tool to make sense of the dilema , who was first ... and since when , and how big , etc , all following naturally as more properties of Somethigness .

Once you read it you'll be tempted to think of the future shocking that the properties of the SuperFluid can give us . Than we'll have a smoky discussion !

Please take your time to read the UPN , there is no math , logic supersseds it , no play on words , just common sense . Then come back to talk about it and have fun doing it .

Originally Posted by Urod

there is too much negativity here

Negativity is a common response to the observation of raw sewage.

Originally Posted by Urod

1) We can't have/make anything out of Nothigness

This statement is incorrect, hence your subsequent argument is rendered irrelevant by the falsity of your opening premise.

Simple explanation here: http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Va...luctuation.htm

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Urod

there is too much negativity here

Negativity is a common response to the observation of raw sewage.

Urod : the Russians are making bacteriophages from raw sewer , looks like it is still in the eye of the un-educated beholder ...

Originally Posted by Urod

1) We can't have/make anything out of Nothigness

This statement is incorrect, hence your subsequent argument is rendered irrelevant by the falsity of your opening premise.

Simple explanation here: http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Va...luctuation.htm

Much simpler explanation : the Nothigness in the UPN it is NOT vaccum , it is not ether , you need to get familliar with the UPN first .

At this point in time , looking back to the responses I got so far , I see only superficiality , speed-reading , a general non-scientific attitude of not understanding first and ask Intelligent questions later , it's all documented ...

Originally Posted by Urod

At this point in time , looking back to the responses I got so far , I see only superficiality , speed-reading , a general non-scientific attitude of not understanding first and ask Intelligent questions later , it's all documented ...

In short, blame the audience not the author. How very convenient.

Perhaps you have a valuable and valid idea. What you do not have is the ability to communicate that idea with any clarity or concision. You heap poorly structured sentences atop each other, populated with vague, undefined terms and loosely described processes. As intellectual fare this is less than subsistence.

There is little comprehensible in your writing and what is comprehensible is nonsense. Try learning something about what you are speculating on that didn't come out of a Discovery Channel documentary or a science popularisation paperback. Then you will see for yourself how silly your ideas are.

[quote="Ophiolite"]

Originally Posted by Urod

At this point in time , looking back to the responses I got so far , I see only superficiality , speed-reading , a general non-scientific attitude of not understanding first and ask Intelligent questions later , it's all documented ...

In short, blame the audience not the author. How very convenient.

Common , nobody reads the UPN but they come forward with claims .

Is this scientific ? Even you didn't read it yet you are criticizing it , how fair is that ?

You have questions , it will be my pleasure to answer , but first please read the UPN to the end .

Thank you !

[quote="Urod"]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Urod

At this point in time , looking back to the responses I got so far , I see only superficiality , speed-reading , a general non-scientific attitude of not understanding first and ask Intelligent questions later , it's all documented ...

In short, blame the audience not the author. How very convenient.

Common , nobody reads the UPN but they come forward with claims .

Is this scientific ? Even you didn't read it yet you are criticizing it , how fair is that ?

You have questions , it will be my pleasure to answer , but first please read the UPN to the end .

Thank you !

Apparently you don't understand how online discussion forums work. It's not up to us to read through your theory; it's up to you to explain enough of it here for discussion so that someone might spend the time and effort to wade through it. Instead you come in here insulting everyone who hasn't read the whole thing and refuse to discuss it with them. And you have't come close to providing enough information to spark any interest among the participants, in fact, what you have said sure seems like pseudoscience.

I'm too busy to waste time; give me a reason to spend it wisely.

[quote="MeteorWayne"][quote="Urod"]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Urod

At this point in time , looking back to the responses I got so far , I see only superficiality , speed-reading , a general non-scientific attitude of not understanding first and ask Intelligent questions later , it's all documented ...

In short, blame the audience not the author. How very convenient.

Common , nobody reads the UPN but they come forward with claims .

Is this scientific ? Even you didn't read it yet you are criticizing it , how fair is that ?

You have questions , it will be my pleasure to answer , but first please read the UPN to the end .

Thank you !

Apparently you don't understand how online discussion forums work. It's not up to us to read through your theory; it's up to you to explain enough of it here for discussion so that someone might spend the time and effort to wade through it. Instead you come in here insulting everyone who hasn't read the whole thing and refuse to discuss it with them. ...

Wow , so you demand a silver spoon ! Did you do the same in school , not studying but asking questions that were answered in the text , guessing the subject ?

Since when you consider insulting by proving that someone is ignorant ?? Because , according to your logic , you just insulted yourself by admiting you didn't read the UPN !

I said I have better things to do with my time, until you say something intelligent enough about whatever it is to invest the time and effort.

Can't read, huh?

And I kept it short!

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

I said I have better things to do with my time, until you say something intelligent enough about whatever it is to invest the time and effort.

Can't read, huh?

And I kept it short!

OK , ready ? " We all are spining SuperFluid " . Done . Oh , bonus , No math !
See the details in the UPN text .

Just to be clear : I came to this forum looking for scientifc criticizm which can be done only when one is comfortable with the subject .
So please , read first , comment after , so we can have a decent conversation .
Thank you !

1) Black-holes creation : just as it was experimentaly shown ( see links in UPN ) that super fluids create naturally vortices , the SuperFluid in the UPN does the same . Note , the UPN SuperFluid has this property due to its infinetly low viscosity , not temperature as in the Lab experiment , yet the Space temperature is the Cosmic Background Radiation ( CBR ) at just 2.7 Kelvin above absolute zero ( so Absolute zero can not exist ... ) .

Those vortices which I suggested to call Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) can over time occur in synchronization to cause a larger vortex that may lead to a black-hole ( BH ) . How large ? 'Luckily' there must be a balance between size and the black-hole Stability .
Sure enough in the lab no vortices merged to form a larger one , and if we look around the Universe we can clerly see that black-holes ( galaxies ) are very few in the huge empty space , separated by millions of light-years . So reality shows us that it is very , very rare that the Fundamental Vortices merge to form a substantial bigger one capable of spinning the soroundinmg SuperFluid .
Matter of fact , , as the UPN shows that the Universe is beyound infinity in age ( it is since 'for ever ' better expressed ) and looking at the ammonut of galaxies or residuals it is right out scarry at how low the probability of forming a BH realy is .

But how can we show this from the UPN in a solid logic way so we can later built the math around it ?
I am happy describing the Formation of a black-hole by Fundamental Vortices occuring simultaneously - by chance - and merging , an extremely rare event .
But what Constrains the formation of a larger BH , why they do not continue to grow or do they , and can they Merge to form a bigger one ?
a) UPN shows ( see logic thread ) that the SuperFluid , the foundation of the Universe , it is Uncompressible , it can not be stretched nor shrunked because that will lead to the creation of 'nothigness' or , respectively , create more SuperFluid ( BTW , the theory of Relativity says the other way ). So whatever we do to the SuperFluid we can't compress it , and that's a notable Restriction factor . Do you agree so far Rade ? I know , it's a tough question , if you say Yes you'll wash yourself of the theory of Relativity , start fresh like in the Matrix ...
b) the viscosity of the SuperFluid : it is shown to be infinetly small yet present , therefore the spinning speed reached by the merged group of Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) , hence technically a black-hole , is the speed ( and size ) that represents the balance between the SuperFluid being teared appart ( the uncompressibility factor ) and the viscosity factor , speed known as the speed of light .

So we can conclude that :

a) it is the combined Viscosity and Uncompressibility of the foundation of the Universe , the SuperFluid , that limits the size of a black hole .
b)since neither the Uncompressibility nor the Viscosity are Variables , we can also conclude that the maximum size of a black-hole , matter of fact the Only size PER black-hole , it is Fixed .
c) due to the strong wake that the BH create in the SF , we can further Guarantee that BHs will be attracted to each other , and if the time permits , BHs will NOT merge , but group together , remaning as individual groups and now forming an association of BHs . Right , Anti-matter and Matter ( spin direction ) will come into play determining if the association will be a stable one or will blow together apart ( slowly or quicly in a Mega explosion just as they were observed ! ) .
This conclusion can be verifyed by Huble through careful analysis of the star orbits around the centre of a galaxy . A woble in the close to the centre orbits will definetly indicate an association , hence multiple BHs . Also we can deduce that , since the gravitational force generated by each associated BH is so strong and since the BHs are tightly grouped together , they will form a common gravitational Vector that from distance will appear to be generated by a single extra-large BH , hence the vector gravity will feel more Uniform as the distance from the centre increases .
Any data to support it ? Well look at this where I take 'random' orbits as 'wobles' :

http://www.universet...-of-our-galaxy/

" ... “The stars in the innermost region are in random orbits, like a swarm of bees,” says Stefan Gillessen, first author of the paper published in The Astrophysical Journal. “However, further out, six of the 28 stars orbit the black hole in a disc. In this respect the new study has also confirmed explicitly earlier work in which the disc had been found, but only in a statistical sense. Ordered motion outside the central light-month, randomly oriented orbits inside – that’s how the dynamics of the young stars in the Galactic Centre are best described.” .


2) Anti-matter : recently it was shown that the our Galaxy is Right-handed ! ( please search ) . According to the UPN , the black-hole at the centre ( spinning the SuperFluid and creating micro-vortices , matter and movement/energy ) spinns in only one direction and therefore all micro-vortices ( the equivalent of sub-sub-... subparticles ) generated will spin in the same direction . BTW , in spiral galaxy it is easy to see if it generates anti-matter or our type of matter by just noticing it's direction of spin .
Another black-hole somewhere else may spin in the opposite direction and the generated micro-vortices , to us , represent Anti-matter .
There are some Very interesting consecuences :
a) any anti-matter encountered in our galaxy is foreign
b) the reciprocal destruction matter/AM acts like the biological bacteria , ensuring that any intruders , spinning the other way , will be obliterated and not allowed to get too deep in our galaxy . I am thinking not of asteroids originated in other galaxies , but of Advanced Alien ships with the wrong spin . But How would an opposite spin translate at the Biological level , in particular intelligence and empathy ?

All UPN updates are at its original site on the same web page as the Recipe for a Nation .

http://RecipeforaNation.WordPress.com

Originally Posted by Urod

But don’t be surprised by its simplicity , it is exactly what most scientists and common sense are expecting : the Foundation is just one outrageously obvious fact of life , that Nothingness doesn’t exist and therefore Somethingness is replacing it !

And now seriously very important this is the pillar of everything from classical physics to quantum physics. Let’s put it on test and let’s computer decides.

Dude, the existence of nothing is so blatantly obvious that a special symbol has been designated for it, "0".
Here, have some more nothing, 0000, and a little more nothing, 00000.
Heck, if it weren't for some nothing, then the whole universe would be one giant traffic jam.
Without nothing, how can one tell the difference between two something's?

Originally Posted by Mixter

Originally Posted by Urod

But don’t be surprised by its simplicity , it is exactly what most scientists and common sense are expecting : the Foundation is just one outrageously obvious fact of life , that Nothingness doesn’t exist and therefore Somethingness is replacing it !

And now seriously very important this is the pillar of everything from classical physics to quantum physics. Let’s put it on test and let’s computer decides.

Gwad Bless You !!!
I already send it to IBM and Cray 4 month ago ... no response !
But of course , I am a nobody and unless a scientist with connections gets drunk and reads the UPN by mistake ....

But if you have or know someone who does have access ( even a janitor lol ) to a supercomputer Mixter is telling you the right thing to do .
Actually , at the end of the UPN I wrote instructions on how the computer to be programed .

And if it turns out its right ....... this Forum will make the news and go down in history .

Thanks a lot Mixter for the great thought and encouragement !
If you leave a comment at the Recipe site would be my pleasure to send you a Dedicated copy of the UPN and the Recipe for a Nation ( the pillar of a hevenly society ) .

Best regards dear !

HEY! If it doesn't exist, how can you "replace" it?

Originally Posted by Urod

Actually , at the end of the UPN I wrote instructions on how the computer to be programed .

And if it turns out its right ....... this Forum will make the news and go down in history .

Can you show those instructions here?

I would like us to take cognizance of some fact;
First, if nothingness exists that means that there is nothingness before the universe began which this is sound enough. If not it is just the universe then it has no beginning.

For the fact that you can recognize that there is nothingness makes you acknowledge that you can imagine things. Basically I think nothingness does not exist it mere imaginations (a strong belief system).

Nothingness is absence of something I mean “anything” whereas nothingness as nothing can also be considered to be at least something in this context.

Thus nothingness is imaginations. Just like anything that we imagine does not physically exist in our brain. Though still part of our imagination, it can be considered to exist only if it manifests. So, imaginations “may” exist. Likewise nothingness “may” exist. This makes me think that everything is a product of imagination.

Nothingness seems to be impossible simply because for the fact that you are doing nothing you are still doing something. For example if you said you are doing nothing yet something must be done is either you are still doing something may be sitting, walking, thinking, sleeping etc…
That means nothingness is impossible.
Thus nothingness does not exist. So everything is impossible and does not exist.

Therefore, for everything to exist nothingness as nothing would have to exist else everything would not be completed and everything would not exist.

How shall we resolve this because of the belief that everything is possible?
In essence, for everything to exist, nothingness would have to exist at least once before now.
So everything is like decay or no decay in radio active atoms.

1) Viscosity :
Why the SF ( SuperFluid ) should have any viscosity at all , why the same ultra-thin substance interact with it self and cause a drag or attraction ( viscosity ) ?

My answer is ... movement , the eternal FVs ( Fundamental Vortices , I hope this name sticks so I can bragg about it : no substance can move in two directions at the same time at the micro-level ( imagine a tag-of-war on an atom ) .
This , occurrs continously at the super-micro level even in spinning SF ( micro-vortices ) and so there will be a resistance to Fluent/Uninterupted/Smooth movement within the SF , the SF is continously pulled and pushed at the super-micro level , by the FVs .
So the viscosity it is actually the Fundamental Vortices (FVs) , therefore super tiny but existant .
I think the above explanation is simple enough and it uses only the SF and its observed natural micro-vortexing .

Please look at previous posts to pick-up the link to lab results showing the FVs occurring spontaneously in a superfluid .

2) Heat : look at this refrigeration techniques using sound waves and magnetic fields proving that heat is a wave .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration

Here is the biggest conclusion : since the SuperFluid that is the Universe is actually a fluid-like substance ( not granular , see proof in the UPN ) , it simply means that All the phenomenon that can possibly occur in the SF ( Universe ) Must be a wave . Heat , matter , magnetism , gravity , etc , all are certain types of waves , nothig else can happend in a fluid !
This is a powerful generalization that also has the benefit of directing science on the right path ...

Cheers !

Originally Posted by Mixter

Originally Posted by Urod

Actually , at the end of the UPN I wrote instructions on how the computer to be programed .

Can you show those instructions here?

Urod : yes , I'll post them by this Sunday , also you can see them at the bottom of the web site where the Recipe for a Nation is posted , see my signature below , thank you .

.... Therefore, for everything to exist nothingness as nothing would have to exist else everything would not be completed and everything would not exist.

How shall we resolve this because of the belief that everything is possible?
In essence, for everything to exist, nothingness would have to exist at least once before now.
So everything is like decay or no decay in radio active atoms.

I like just as you do to take the logic in small steps to built it solid , and the very first one , the Unifying Property of nature , is the most important , as you pointed out .
The most Aspirin consuming thoughts that I had for month ( it took some ten days to complete 80 % of what UPN is today after the 'revelation' !! ) , were the ones involving the Marry-go-around conundrum of what appeared first .
Because on one hand you have nothigness which can not generate anythig , while on the other hand you start with Something that screems of something else before that made it , and so on . It can drive you to alhoolism

Until one day when the reality strucked that Nothigness doesn't exit , hence 'something' must be there instead , and sure enough I was sorounded by a lot of 'somethigness' .
After that the rest of the properties of the SuperFluid popped quicly , it was a steady flow of explanations all based on just one thing , the SuperFluid and its properties it has in order to not leave any room for Nothigness ( that it is used as a tool and contrast to the SF for an easier understanding of reality ) .

The beauty of nature having no Nothigness it is so Raw and basic it requires getting adjusted to it since we are so used to thigngs having a beggining ( but not realizing that all we do is recycling the SuperFluid ) .
Try talking to yourself : " the definition of Nothigness is that there is nothing there to exist , other way it would be ... Somethigness ! Bingo ! " . That easy .

Cheers !

Originally Posted by Urod

1) Viscosity :
Why the SF ( SuperFluid ) should have any viscosity at all , why the same ultra-thin substance interact with it self and cause a drag or attraction ( viscosity ) ?

Word salad. Not even wrong.

Originally Posted by Urod

no substance can move in two directions at the same time at the micro-level ( imagine a tag-of-war on an atom ) .

Originally Posted by Urod

the SuperFluid that is the Universe is actually a fluid-like substance ( not granular

Ummm, can we say "contradiction"?
So which is it, discrete or continuous?

Originally Posted by Urod

heat is a wave .

Temperature, which is a measure of heat is;
The statistical average of atomic kinesis for a given sample.
Heat is not a wave.

Originally Posted by Urod

Here is the biggest conclusion : since the SuperFluid that is the Universe is actually a fluid-like substance ( not granular , see proof in the UPN ) , it simply means that All the phenomenon that can possibly occur in the SF ( Universe ) Must be a wave . Heat , matter , magnetism , gravity , etc , all are certain types of waves , nothig else can happend in a fluid !

Here you propose an aether, which has been solidly disproved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

I got your PM thank you for the complement.
Later right…

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by Urod

1) Viscosity :
Why the SF ( SuperFluid ) should have any viscosity at all , why the same ultra-thin substance interact with it self and cause a drag or attraction ( viscosity ) ?

Word salad. Not even wrong.

Originally Posted by Urod

no substance can move in two directions at the same time at the micro-level ( imagine a tag-of-war on an atom ) .

Originally Posted by Urod

the SuperFluid that is the Universe is actually a fluid-like substance ( not granular

Ummm, can we say "contradiction"?
So which is it, discrete or continuous?

Urod answers : first of all thank you GiantEvil for considering the UPN , your scrutiny is highly desired and appreciated , how about that for word-salad !
I am saying that because the text in the UPN clearly guids the reader step by step showing how the SuperFluid (SF) is continuos in structure , not granular ( atoms , sub-particles ) .
My writing above that you quoted where I mentioned atoms is just an example to help understand the 'washing-machine' like agitation that the Fundamental Vortices cause in the SF , a movement ( vortices ) that represents the fundamental perpetual dynamo that gives us Movement via the FVs , a motion that we interpret as Energy .
The observed 2.7 Kelvin Cosmic Background Radiation temperature it is explained by the UPN via the FVs , hence it is imposible to obtain Absolute Zero , a scientific fact . Built me the device that extractsérecycles the FV movement and you have a free , clean , no moving parts , Society-changing energy generator ...

Tell me please , would this convince you to take the time and enjoy reading the UPN so toghether we can dechipher even more possibilities , like the one that DARPA would like , the ultimate matter vanisher ... uhhh , read along .

Originally Posted by Urod

heat is a wave .

Temperature, which is a measure of heat is;
The statistical average of atomic kinesis for a given sample.
Heat is not a wave.

Urod answers : the UPN defines heat as just another familly of waves ( even micro-vortices grouping perhaps ) that are generated by what we call atoms ( huge grouping of micro-vortices , no electrons spinning Around a nucleus , see details in UPN ) , so we think parallel , just a different interpretation of reality .

Originally Posted by Urod

Here is the biggest conclusion : since the SuperFluid that is the Universe is actually a fluid-like substance ( not granular , see proof in the UPN ) , it simply means that All the phenomenon that can possibly occur in the SF ( Universe ) Must be a wave . Heat , matter , magnetism , gravity , etc , all are certain types of waves , nothig else can happend in a fluid !

Here you propose an aether, which has been solidly disproved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

Urod answers : GiantEvil , you notghy person you , I can tell you didn`t have time to read the UPN or you are not entirely familiar with what ether was considered to be outside of the UPN ... But don`t feel , well , Bad ( pun almost not intended ) because you are in good company : myself I do not understand the traditional ether because I never bothered reading about it . You too `Brutus`...

So , GE , You need to prove that the UPN`s SuperFluid it is ether , void or vacuum , I can`t help you with this one . Of course you will need to be super fluent in UPN other ways , well , bad things will happen to your reputation , (joke).

Due to your perseverance that I much appreciate ( you are an active and precious critic of the UPN ) I encourage you to read the UPN in the non-speed mode and be delighted by the simplicity that nature is : one single substance behaving like a superfluid ( the SuperFluid - SF ) replacing the nothigness that just doesn`t exist ( hence something else must replace it - look around as proof - hence we have the SF ) , the Fundamental Vortices that occurr naturally in a superfluid that provide 24é7 energy that may occured synchronized as a black-hole that will spin the SuperFluid like water spinning vortices and ejecting the micro-vortices ( spun SuperFluid ) that represent the basic sub-particles which when grouping form particles , atoms and molecules .

There , the ultra short version of the UPN , concluding that we all are spinning SuperFluid ( SF ) spun by a black-hole . Hence the BH preceds the sun in our birth , we are not star dust but black-hole ejaculant , oh well , the mother of all holes .
Are you gona read it now , Giant Devil É

É stands for the question mark and somebody in my compûter ...
Would the Lul`s heard me ÉÉÉÉÉÉ

Originally Posted by Mixter

I got your PM thank you for the complement.
Later right…

You are very welcome Mixter , and I hope you'll have the means to plug the UPN into a supercomputer .

Generaly speaking we need to super-fine tune the variables in order to achieve real-like proportions and ratios so the micro-vortices will interact ( forming su-particles , particles , atoms and macro-molecules ) and also generate waves that in turn ( fine tuned ) will sudden ( just as electricity 'jumps' ) form startling Harmonics that can be magnetic or/and electric fields , but also weakes in the SuperFluid representing Gravity .

The initial data :

SuperFluid viscosity = aproaching infinity ( hence fine tuning it will be a chalange ! ) . Also consider the Fundamental Vortices ( see posts above + UPN text ) that ride on the micro-vortices like 'noise' , possible inducing 'butter-fly' effects including Harmonics .
Micro-vortices spin speed ( churning , spinning the SuperFluid ) = around speed of light ( to be fine tuned )
Micro-vortices Shape = cylindrical or conical
Micro-vortices spin direction = all must have the same spin direction because all were generated by the same black-hole in the local galaxy . However turning up-side-down can create locking patterns between vortices .

Variables built in the simulation :

1) the properties of the SuperFluid , SF ( each slightly variable , besides nil ) :
- viscosity ( towards small infinite or nil )
- uncompressible ( or yes )
- inelastic ( or yes and variable range )
- un-plastic ( or yes )

2) the micro-vortices of spinning SuperFluid :
- spin direction
- actual rotational speed as 90 to 99 % of the speed of light
- shape of the vortices
- methods of self attaching similar to covalent or ionic bonds ( vortices lock or just riding the neighbour's wake ) .
- the resulting individual and collective spinning Wake of the SuperFluid , wake that we call gravity , and its Harmonics creating Magnetic and Electrostatic fields ( wakes in the SF ) .

Varying the above properties , the computer may show spontaneous association/bonding/connecting of the micro-vortices ( by the thousands ) to form sub-particles , atoms and molecules , and by doing so Validating the Unifying Properties of Nature ( UPN ) .

Watch for the Harmonics . As the SuperFluid and micro-vortices properties are tuned just right , when the micro-vortices join the combined/resultant wave Wake in the SF , will suddenly appear as a Harmonic forming the magnetic and Electrostatic fields and forces , a natural resultant of SuperFluid hydro dynamics under the governance of the SF and micro-vortices properties .
All we need now is a super-computer to render/simulate the SF , the micro-vortices and their interactions forming subparticles , particles , atoms and molecules , the entire possibilities of the Universe , including DNA ...

Good luck Mixter and I am drooling for the results !

Cheers !

The latests updates of the UPN are found at the Recipe for a Nation web site .

Okay, my bad. I should'a known that this rodeo would be full of bullpucky and clowns.
Ya'll have fun down here.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Okay, my bad. I should'a known that this rodeo would be full of bullpucky and clowns.
Ya'll have fun down here.

Please GE , you have the spunk I need from someone to find any errors in the UPN , please get comfy with it and came back with the criticism , Thanks a lot !

Here for the first time in my life I can finally see an almost complete description of a Black-hole .
But there is more behind the Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) that cause ( "randomly" , not explained enough ) the apperance of a Black-hole , so much more that it's scarry ...

Black-holes creation , properties , their Forward speed and antimatter :

1) Black-holes creation : just as it was experimentally shown ( see links in UPN ) that super fluids create naturally vortices , the SuperFluid in the UPN does the same . Note , the UPN SuperFluid has this property due to its infinitely low viscosity , not temperature as in the Lab experiment , yet the Space temperature is the Cosmic Background Radiation ( CBR ) at just 2.7 Kelvin above absolute zero ( so Absolute zero can not exist ... ) .

Those vortices which I suggested to call Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) can over time occur in synchronization to cause a larger vortex that may lead to a black-hole ( BH ) . How large ? 'Luckily' there must be a balance between size and the black-hole Stability .
Sure enough in the lab no vortices merged to form a larger one , and if we look around the Universe we can clearly see that black-holes ( galaxies ) are very few in the huge empty space , separated by millions of light-years . So reality shows us that it is very , very rare that the Fundamental Vortices merge to form a substantial bigger one capable of spinning the surrounding SuperFluid .
Matter of fact as the UPN shows that the Universe is beyond infinity in age ( it is since 'for ever ' better expressed ) and looking at the amount of galaxies or residuals it is right out scary at how low the probability of forming a BH really is .

But how can we show this from the UPN in a solid logic way so we can later built the math around it ?
I am happy describing the Formation of a black-hole by Fundamental Vortices occurring simultaneously - by chance - and merging , an extremely rare event .



But what Constrains the formation of a larger BH , why they do not continue to grow or do they , and can they Merge to form a bigger one ?
a) UPN shows ( see logic thread ) that the SuperFluid , the foundation of the Universe , it is incompressible , it can not be stretched nor shrunked because that will lead to the creation of 'nothingness' or , respectively , create more SuperFluid ( BTW , the theory of Relativity says the other way ). So whatever we do to the SuperFluid we can't compress it , and that's a notable Restriction factor .

b) the viscosity of the SuperFluid : it is shown to be infinitely small yet present , therefore the spinning speed reached by the merged group of Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) , hence technically a black-hole , is the speed ( and size ) that represents the balance between the SuperFluid being tear apart ( the incompressibility factor ) and the viscosity factor , speed known as the speed of light .

So we can conclude that :

a) it is the combined Viscosity and Incompressibility of the foundation of the Universe , the SuperFluid , that limits the size of a black hole .

b)since neither the Incompressibility nor the Viscosity are Variables , we can also conclude that the maximum size of a black-hole , matter of fact the Only size PER black-hole , it is Fixed .

c) due to the strong wake that the BH create in the SF , we can further Guarantee that BHs will be attracted to each other , and if the time permits , BHs will NOT merge ( due to size constrains ) , but group together , remaining as individual groups and now forming an association of BHs . Right , Anti-matter and Matter ( spin direction ) will come into play determining if the association will be a stable one or will blow together apart ( slowly or quickly in a Mega explosion just as they were observed ! ) .

This conclusion can be verified by Hubble through careful analysis of the star orbits around the centre of a galaxy . A wobble in the close to the centre orbits will definitely indicate an association , hence multiple BHs . Also we can deduce that , since the gravitational force generated by each associated BH is so strong and since the BHs are tightly grouped together , they will form a common gravitational Vector that from distance will appear to be generated by a single extra-large BH , hence the vector gravity will feel more Uniform as the distance from the centre increases .

Any data to support it ? Well look at this where I take 'random' orbits as 'wobbles' :

http://www.universet...-of-our-galaxy/

" ... “The stars in the innermost region are in random orbits, like a swarm of bees,” says Stefan Gillessen, first author of the paper published in The Astrophysical Journal. “However, further out, six of the 28 stars orbit the black hole in a disc. In this respect the new study has also confirmed explicitly earlier work in which the disc had been found, but only in a statistical sense. Ordered motion outside the central light-month, randomly oriented orbits inside – that’s how the dynamics of the young stars in the Galactic Centre are best described.” .


The Forward Speed of a Black-hole ( BH ) : just as in rocket engines , the action-reaction is valid at this fundamental level as well , so a black-hole will be propelled forward by the spun SuperFluid that it ejects at close to the speed of light . This can be easily confused , as presently is , with a Universe Expansion , when actually is just a moving about of black-holes. Considering the ultra low viscosity of the SF , the extreme small size of the BH and its spin speed of almost that of light we can assume without calculations that the forward speed will be tremendous , carrying along its product , a galaxy . Furth er more , as a single point with its spin aligned naturally with its forward movement , the black-hole will be able to travel as fast as the speed of light since it will be able to absorb the SuperFluid at the maximum possible rate , that of the BH own rotation ( the speed of light ) :

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...s-distant.html

“ … Looking almost 11 billion years into the past, astronomers measured the motions of stars in a very distant galaxy whirling at a speed of one million miles per hour -- about twice the speed of our Sun through the Milky Way. The galaxies are a fraction the size of our Milky Way, and so may have evolved over billions of years into the full-grown galaxies seen around us today. They've spotted super-squeezed, massive, high speed galaxies -- and they don't know why. “ …

2) Anti-matter : according to the UPN , the black-hole at the centre of a galaxy ( spinning the SuperFluid and creating micro-vortices , matter and movement/energy ) spins in only one direction and therefore all micro-vortices ( the equivalent of sub-sub-... subparticles ) generated will spin in the same direction . BTW , in spiral galaxy it is easy to see if it generates anti-matter or our type of matter by just noticing it's direction of spin .
Another black-hole somewhere else may spin in the opposite direction and the generated micro-vortices , to us , represent Anti-matter .
There are some Very interesting consequences :
a) any anti-matter encountered in our galaxy is foreign

b) the reciprocal destruction matter/AM acts like the biological bacteria , ensuring that any intruders , spinning the other way , will be obliterated and not allowed to get too deep in our galaxy . I am thinking not of asteroids originated in other galaxies , but of Advanced Alien ships with the wrong spin . But How would an opposite spin translate at the Biological level , in particular intelligence and empathy ?

Reading the UPN first , will make it easier to relate to the description of the BH , please do it , there is no math , just small Logic steps .

Thank you all and specially the Moderators who are putting-up and did not delete my UPN ! One day you will be very , very glad you didn't ...

Cheers ,

Urod

The pathology of madness interests me greatly.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The pathology of madness interests me greatly.

Superfluid between the ears?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The pathology of madness interests me greatly.

Superfluid between the ears?

Also Ophiolite said " The pathology of madness interests me greatly.

I came to this forum looking for bright minds to criticise the UPN constructively but so far it appears that very few had the time to read the UPN , and I understand that .
What I don't understand is the 'logic' applied by others that offer replies totaly out of context , see the examples above , while others speed-read the UPN , miss a lot of info and then post a reply that doesn't address anything in the UPN .

The only silver line is that the UPN has been moved to Pseudo Science , closer to the Trash Can , and I am considering it a positive only in a sarcastic way since the UPN trashes the present science . But that's not new in science , just remember Galileo Galilei who was ostichised by the Church for stating that the Earth revolves around the Sun , and before that the scientists thought that the Earth was flat ...

In the case of the UPN there is just a train of logic , no math or other formulas to argue over . Yet so far nobody had the patience to follow the simple logic steps and find a problem . Why ? I am puzzeled specialy since the UPN explains in the simplest way many things that the present science can not : the Duality observed in particles , gravity , black-holes , matter , energy , etc. .

If present scientists believe that 'electrons' speed around a nucleus on certain orbits and that space can be stretched than I qualify the present understanding of Nature ... pseudo science .

Luckily Google saved the entired thread and replies for eternity so one day I'll bring them back to judge the judges ...

One only need's a small sample of a cowpie to realize that the whole mass is a stinking pile of you know what.

Originally Posted by Urod

Also Ophiolite said " The pathology of madness interests me greatly.

I came to this forum looking for bright minds to criticise the UPN constructively but so far it appears that very few had the time to read the UPN , and I understand that .
What I don't understand is the 'logic' applied by others that offer replies totaly out of context , see the examples above , while others speed-read the UPN , miss a lot of info and then post a reply that doesn't address anything in the UPN ..

This is a valid criticism and merits a considered answer. I offer this respectfully even though the conclusion is, arguably, disrespectful.

I have been engaged in several science forums since 2005. During that time I have read well over a hundred, probably over two hundred new 'theories'. Everyone of these that I have looked at - and in the early stages I looked at them all - has proven to be purest claptrap.

And they share other characteristics. Some of the more important characteristics are these:
1. Poorly defined terms, or terms defined quite differently from conventional science, or terms that are contradcitory, or highly ambiguous.
2. A declaration that the theory is significant breakthrough.
3. A declaration, implicit or explicit, that current theory is wrong.
4. A demonstration that the poster doens't actually understand current theory.
5. A failure to show definitively how the new theory offers a better explanation.
6. The total absence of maths where maths is required.
7. No falsifiability.

As far as I can discern your theory has most or all of these characteristics. It reeks of them. What else do you wish me to say?

[quote=

And they share other characteristics. Some of the more important characteristics are these:
1. Poorly defined terms, or terms defined quite differently from conventional science, or terms that are contradcitory, or highly ambiguous.
2. A declaration that the theory is significant breakthrough.
3. A declaration, implicit or explicit, that current theory is wrong.
4. A demonstration that the poster doens't actually understand current theory.
5. A failure to show definitively how the new theory offers a better explanation.
6. The total absence of maths where maths is required.
7. No falsifiability.

As far as I can discern your theory has most or all of these characteristics. It reeks of them. What else do you wish me to say?[/quote]

NOTICE : since the Forum had a mishap a few days ago I have a hard time accessing posting and PM . If I don't reply it is because I can't get in . So far I was able to thanks to Mediators via e-mail . Thank you all three Moderators who helped me get back in every day .

Now , dear Ophiolite , :

You : " As far as I can discern your theory has most or all of these characteristics. "

A : You mean you are not sure ?? In other words you admit that you didn't have the time to fully read it and understand it .
You made a nice line up of faults yet you didn't have a moment to type a valid example from the UPN !

I understand , so here is a suggestion directly related to understanding and therefore being in a position to criticize it : aside of the literary desciption the core of the UPN is one Logic chain , and each link is numbered and represents a small step in the logic process .
So anyone's easy job is to walk the Roads of logic and find faults . If you do please bring it forward but also try to find a solution , that's why I posted in this brainy forum , not for screwdrivers and other aberations .

So hit the road of logic in the UPN and test drive it . You may get addicted ...

Sample from the UPN :

# 5 Logic Road :

# 5 : Is the Universe Expanding or changing size ?



5-1 : ‘ Expanding ‘ means start occupying a different , foreign space that was not occupied before . This implies at least two different SuperFluid types ( one expanding into the other ) .

5-2 : However , what ever takes the place of Nothingness must behave the same ( like a SuperFluid , simple and able to fill any space available in the Universe ) .

5-3 : Since those properties of Somethingness ( SuperFluid ) are the same across the Universe and have the same function because it replaces the same Nothingness , it implies that there is only one type of fundamental SuperFluid , not more .

5-4 : Since the SuperFluid/matter can not be created any further than exists , and since it replaces Nothingness every where and since Nothingness also can not be created implies that the SuperFluid already occupies all the space there is in the Universe and since always . We can not create nor destroy matter , hence the its Amount is Fix , therefore there can not be an expansion nor a Big Bang .

5-5 : Conclusion : combining 5-3 and 5-4 it is clear that the Universe ( all that can exist without creating more ) is made of the same material ( SuperFluid ) which can not expend into itself , therefore the Universe is Stable and fix , not changing in size .

5-6 : Note : being fixed in size doesn’t imply a Border or Membrane because any material different than the SuperFluid can not exit so no border/limit can exist .

Further more , against our life experiences , the size and shape of the Universe is better described as “ All that there is and can be , beyond infinity “ .

This makes sense and slowly becomes accepted by our intelligence if we think of the Nothingness instead of its counterpart ( and replacement ) the Somethingness ( the SuperFluid ) : imagine an Universe filled by Nothingness and it’s easier to understand why an Unlimited size for the Universe is normal in order to fill in any spaces that could be occupied by Nothingness .

Of course , immediately we’ll remember that Nothingness doesn’t ( and can’t ) exist , so we’ll automatically replace it with the Somethingness ( the SuperFluid ) and therefore our minds will accept easier the concept of an endless Universe opposite to an infinite Nothingness ( absolute void ) .....

Have the cuorage to take on the UPN , it is very rewarding .

Cheers and Thank you again to the Moderators that helped me !

Originally Posted by Urod

Now , dear Ophiolite , :

You : " As far as I can discern your theory has most or all of these characteristics. "

A : You mean you are not sure ?? In other words you admit that you didn't have the time to fully read it and understand it .

Learn to read and perhaps your own writing will improve to point where it is comprehensible.
"As far as I can discern" means exactly what it says. Because of some of the points I raised about your writing, it is impossible to understand what you are waffling about. Perhaps hidden in that miasma of brain farts is something of substance, but your turgid prose ensures it is very well hidden. Therefore, as far as I can discern, your hypothesis suffers from all the issues I have described.

Originally Posted by Urod

You made a nice line up of faults yet you didn't have a moment to type a valid example from the UPN

Because it is scarcely worth the effort. Almost every sentence is an example of one or more of the points I raised. Your inability to see this is itself further proof of how nonsensical your hypothesis is.

Originally Posted by Urod

So anyone's easy job is to walk the Roads of logic and find faults . If you do please bring it forward but also try to find a solution , that's why I posted in this brainy forum , not for screwdrivers and other aberations .!

If it were broke we might be able to fix it. This isn't broke, this isn't even wrong. This is just nonsense.

Originally Posted by Urod

# 5 Logic Road :
# 5 : Is the Universe Expanding or changing size ?
5-1 : ‘ Expanding ‘ means start occupying a different , foreign space that was not occupied before .

This is incorrect and so invalidates the entire logic chain from this point forward. You are envisaging the expansion as if it were the famous analogy of an explosion. It isn't. The universe is not expanding into anything. The expansion creates new space. Your statement is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Urod

This implies at least two different SuperFluid types ( one expanding into the other )

There is no such implication. If you think there is you need to make the implication explicit. At present it looks like word salad. (This is largely incidental since you clearly do not understand the nature of expansion.

There is further word salad devoid of semantic content, then you say.

Originally Posted by Urod

We can not create nor destroy matter ,

Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Originally Posted by Urod

5-5 : Conclusion : combining 5-3 and 5-4 it is clear that the Universe ( all that can exist without creating more ) is made of the same material ( SuperFluid ) which can not expend into itself , therefore the Universe is Stable and fix , not changing in size .

This runs wholy counter to observation and is therefore invalid.

I have no intention of wasting anymore time on your 'theory'. It is disorganised, incomprehensible, vague, ambiguous and contrary to observation. Your terms are ill defined, your knowledge of existing theory is abyssmal, you make no predictions, you offer no improvement over current theory. In short its a fucking balls up. You clearly have delusions of adequacy. Please go away and get an education.

Edited to correct error in quote function.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
[quote="Urod

# 5 Logic Road :
# 5 : Is the Universe Expanding or changing size ?
5-1 : ‘ Expanding ‘ means start occupying a different , foreign space that was not occupied before .

Ophiolite : This is incorrect and so invalidates the entire logic chain from this point forward. You are envisaging the expansion as if it were the famous analogy of an explosion. It isn't. The universe is not expanding into anything. The expansion creates new space. Your statement is incorrect.

Urod : you just said that it creates New space ?? From what , Nothigness ? Are you kidding ?
I though that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed , an 101 of Physics also Proven by the UPN ... Hence your point goes against your own accepted physics laws which disqualifies you from having a valuable oppinion on physics ... Anything else Ophiolite ?

The UPN doesn't have that problem , since nothing can be created further than what is already available , no new matter , space or nothigness , it's a stable environment .
The updated UPN can be found at the end of the web site where the Recipe for a Nation is posted , but please leave comments on this Forum , I am looking for brains to disect the UPN ... but not like what I got so far !

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground , future shocking

I see you are starting to panic. This is a good thing. In a state of sufficient panic you may experience an epiphany and realise just how wrong you are.

you just said that it creates New space ?? From what , Nothigness ? Are you kidding ?
I though that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed

Personal incredulity is no justification for, or proof of, a dumb idea. Space is not matter, space is not energy. There is no violation of any physical laws. (Further evidence there of my point 4.)

And you make no attempt to address the other points within my last post, where you were clearly demonstrated to be wrong. You have built an incohate structure on a bed of gossamer dreams.

it's a stable environment

Observation clearly demonstrates that this is not the case. How does the UPN account for Olber's Paradox?

I am looking for brains to disect the UPN ... but not like what I got so far !

You are looking for fools to tell you that you are onto something. You aren't.

Okay, one more attempt at reason, and otherwise I must consider you dysfunctionally delusional Urod.
On multiple points, your UPN disagrees with contemporary science.
Science as it stands can do many things, like optically store data, or land spacecraft on other planets.
Can you Urod, with your UPN, optically store data, or land spacecraft on other planets? Hmmm?
You, Urod, have demonstrated your own ignorance of scientific history (Luminiferous aether), the difference between continuum and discrete, and have yet to provide any math's.
And let's not forget every single point Ophiolite has made so far.

Here's a science question for you. What is the mechanism for Terran seasonal temperature variance?
Here, I'll give you two clues, declination and ecliptic.
Now, can you provide a concise answer to the question?

Can you answer this. From what branch of math's do the acronyms SOH, CAH, and TOA come? What do they stand for?

You know how much about science? And you'r claiming to have the universal answer?

Face reality dude, your UPN isn't even pseudoscience, it's pseudophilosophy.
Your UPN is my pretty pony poetry, that doesn't rhyme.

[QUOTE=Ophiolite;274923] Space is not matter, space is not energy. There is no violation of any physical laws. QUOTE]Urod : The UPN proves that space and the SuperFluid are the same , and that's contrary to what you are supporting . The UPN : the Universe is made out of the SuperFluid ( please read , it's straight forward ) . Obviously the SuperFluid is the space and everything else there is .Ophiolite : space and matter are different . Urod's commetnt : while in the UPN there is just one component that all is made out of , the SuperFluid , in Opheliolite's interpretation of the Universe there are at least two components , yet nobody saw or detected "space" . In fairness , the SuperFluid can be seen everywhere ( in deep space is in its quiet state , not spun , see UPN ) , but even if we discard those observations the UPN still looks better than the other theory simply because it has just one non-granular component , yet it explains More that the other theory ( particle Duality , CBR , Gravity , black holes , etc. ) .The other theory can't do that yet those people are knocking down the UPN not by showing logic faults but by simply stating Their theory as a Fact ! Opheliolite , you avoided my previous question about how your theory creates new space in the Universe ( the UPN doesn't have that problem ) , by ... stating that space and matter are different . So , if new space can be created , are you ready to commit to your theory and also state that new matter can not be created , but only new space ( what ever space maybe in your theory ) .Further to your theory , it gets complicated as now you have to dedal with two components , the space and the matter .The UPN doesn't have that problem and , on top , it explains phenomenon that Opheolite's can not ( see above samples ) .Please Opheolite , you must explain just How new space is created in your theory before we go further .Also prepare for your next conundrum , explaining how matter is different from space .In the UPN there is no begining of the SuperFluid ( the Universe ) and this is against the grain and our expectations since we are used to see around us a begining to things .But , here is the solution to see the picture :1) mirroring the explanation in the UPN text , it is much easier to understand this by using the abstract Nothigness that existed since always ( definetly you may say , Definetly the Nothigness has no begining ) HENCE the Somethigness that replaces the Nothigness ALSO has no begining , it;s the status quo of Nature . That also explains why the Universe ( SUperFluid ) it is not expending ( there is no nothigness to be `replaced`, ABSTRACTLY , sorry , not shouting but paranoid someone may speed-read this ) . QED ( both , that there is no begining to the Universe and that the Universe is not expanding nor shrinking ). 2) consider also that we are only Recycling the SuperFluid ( SF ) , not creating it nor destroying it , so what appears to us as New things with a beggining is just rearanging the SF .Looking forward to your reply !( to all , in the SuperFluid Universe all phenomenon that can occur are the ones that can occur in a fluid which is Waves and-or Vortices , a much easier world and physics to understand ) .All updates to the UPN are on the Recipe`s web page , but please bring comments to this forum , thanks .Cheers

Okay, I have this crazy hypothesis. Urod is or was an AI. Like a random accidental rogue one, or maybe created, but anyway's, me and Ophie, see, we broke i'm. Not on purpose or noth'n but that's what happened. Cause', well not cause', we didn't do it on no purpose or nothin'.

Urod,
I'm done with this. I don't have to offer proof of my theory. It's not my theory. It's a theory that is supported by thousands of scientists and millions of observations. It is internally consistent and has huge explanatory power.

Your work is - and now the gloves have to come off - pure and utter crap. It has no merit whatsoever. It is dumb. It is inconsistent. It is against observation. It is meaningless verbiage spread on a sea of nonsense. These are its strongest points.

Your inablity to see this and your deluded belief that you have produced something of value demonstrates that you have a sub-standard intellect and the reasoning power of a tree with Dutch Elm disease. You have two productive options facing you: grow up or piss off. I'm happy with either, or neither, since I shan't be engaging with you any more - stupidity might just be catching.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Urod,I'm done with this. I don't have to offer proof of my theory. It's not my theory. .....Your work is - and now the gloves have to come off - pure and utter crap. It has no merit whatsoever. It is dumb. It is inconsistent. It is against observation. ....

I am happy that you took that off your chest and now that you feel better let's take a look at the scientific Observations that support the UPN and that you missed ( because you didn't read it yet you are very oppinionated ) :The UPN is supported by observations , please check the Text for numerous links to scientific sites : 1) the duality of particles ( the double slit experiment ) , only UPN explains it flawlesly since the micro-vortices are Both units ( particles ) and Waves ( spinning SuperFluid ) .2) The UPN predicts the Association of Black-holes that can not grow beyound certain size ( natural restrictions due to the properties of the SuperFluid that it is spun by black-holes ) but can lock in rotating toghether . The UPN prediction is confirmed by the iregular orbits of the stars closest to the centre of a galaxy : http://www.universet…-of-our-galaxy/3) the UPN predicts that black-holes are moving at high speeds due to the ejection of the spun SuperFluid , a jet-engine effect :http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-distant.html4) the UPN predicts the vortices ( turbulences ) occuring naturally in a super fluid "http://www.ncl.ac.uk/math/research/applied/classic_fluid.htm5) the UPN shows that those vortices provide the Movement ( Energy ) that it is produced 24/7 by the SuperFluid , hence explaining the observed Cosmic Background Radiation , and in the process demonstrating that Absolute zero temperature can not be achieved :Real-Time Dynamics of Quantized Vortices in a Unitary Fermi Superfluid) the UPN explains the 'missing matter ' by showing that very old micro-vortices ( sub-sub ... - particles ) slowing down due to the ( extremely low ) viscosity of the SuperFluid still spin hence still producing Gravity wakes observed :http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm7) using the principle of Harmonics any 'field' and/or concentration of energy can be explained .But if there is one single proof that the UPN shows and deserves attention is that it explains the particle Duality . Here is what it means from a big figure :Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? - MIT News Office “ … The wave-particle duality is best illustrated by a canonical experiment in quantum mechanics that’s generally referred to as the two-slit, or two-hole, experiment. As the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman ’39 once put it, “Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, ‘You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It’s the same thing.’ ” .Thank you all for your consideration and I invite you to take the UPN a notch further and bring it to the attention of the people that have the tools to check it ( supercomputers for a simulation ) .

Urod, you are delusional. You need to seek some professional help. Go see a psychiatrist, please.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Urod, you are delusional. You need to seek some professional help. Go see a psychiatrist, please.

So I did , and he said " You have guys screeming for Math regarding a super fluid ? I got answers ! " .He gave me this :http://www.acqao.org/workshops/2004_...ureBallagh.pdf Sure enough the Super Fluid math is here and I even didn't know !There you'll see the vortices math and the energy ( kinetic ) available all express in a delicious math and formulas to keep you guys busy for a while .I just connected a few dots in the UPN but sure enough , the "specialists" in this forum were not even aware that Super Fluid math was already here for a while !! And silly me I am asking their oppinion !! As you can see I had to re-register because the system didn't recognized my IDs anylonger .... wow !!But I know Google saves this .Enough wasted time here , Physics Forum ?? ... I don't think so !

Originally Posted by Urod 2

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Urod, you are delusional. You need to seek some professional help. Go see a psychiatrist, please.

So I did , and he said " You have guys screeming for Math regarding a super fluid ? I got answers ! " .He gave me this :http://www.acqao.org/workshops/2004_...ureBallagh.pdf Sure enough the Super Fluid math is here and I even didn't know !There you'll see the vortices math and the energy ( kinetic ) available all express in a delicious math and formulas to keep you guys busy for a while .I just connected a few dots in the UPN but sure enough , the "specialists" in this forum were not even aware that Super Fluid math was already here for a while !! And silly me I am asking their oppinion !! As you can see I had to re-register because the system didn't recognized my IDs anylonger .... wow !!But I know Google saves this .Enough wasted time here , Physics Forum ?? ... I don't think so !

So Urod 2, if you read your own PDF, you will come to understand that fluid vortices are inherently unstable. How do you reconcile this with the fact that there has never been an observation of spontaneous electron decay?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by Urod 2

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Urod, you are delusional. You need to seek some professional help. Go see a psychiatrist, please.

So I did , and he said " You have guys screeming for Math regarding a super fluid ? I got answers ! " .He gave me this :http://www.acqao.org/workshops/2004_...ureBallagh.pdf Sure enough the Super Fluid math is here and I even didn't know ....

So Urod 2, if you read your own PDF, you will come to understand that fluid vortices are inherently unstable. How do you reconcile this with the fact that there has never been an observation of spontaneous electron decay?

I am glad we are talking science now , sorry for the late reply but my user data was gone and I couldn't log in .Simple , the vortices occuring in super fluids described by Prof. Ballagh formulas are far greater in size than electrons , those vortices are made out of 'matter' ( spinning SuperFluid , the vortices created that way associating to form sub-particles .On the other hand , the UPN describes the Fundamental Vortices that occur in the SuperFluid that is the 'fabric' of the Universe , vortices that are far smaller than electrons ( actualy Making the electrons ) . As per UPN the laboratory super fluid is made of the SuperFluid .So there is a huge difference in size between the Fundamental Vortices ( the smallest ) as I called them occuring in SuperFluid and the super fluid vortices that we observe in laboratory . Hence the electrons 'ride' the larger 'matter' vortices ( lab super fluid ) and not being affected . What do you think ?Look also at the fempto scale and far below where the Fundamental Vortices ( that 'boil' the SuperFluid ) ride all vortices ( matter and energy ) like 'static' or line 'noise' over everithing that exists and being the basic source of all existing Movement ( energy ) in the Universe .The UPN shows therefore that over the eternity of the Universe thre are extremly remote chances that yet will happened , in which the Fundamental Vortices will occur spontaneously in a formation that will trigger the appearance of a black hole , instanteniously ...Luckily for us those occurances are extremely rare as we see from the low number of matter ( galaxies ) per cubic light year .We need a Super Computer to perform the simulations as described at the end of the UPN .All updates are at the original site but please post here any comments , thank you :http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.comThank you all Moderators for letting me back in the forum , and Thanks GiantEvil for not inssulting me any longer ( so far ) .

URL]http://www.acqao.org/workshops/2004_School_lectures/VortexLectureBallagh.pdf[/URL] So Urod 2, if you read your own PDF, you will come to understand that fluid vortices are inherently unstable ... [/QUOTE]... 'inherently' ... 'random' , words that I try hard to avoid and replace with explanations specially since I believe that randomness does not exist ( is just our luck of understanding and/or measuring equipment ) .The last two properties of the SuperFluid in UPN that needs to be explained properly are :1) what actualy is the SuperFluid if posible to describe it further than its properties . 2) how the Fundamental Vortices occur in the SuperFluid , a better explanation of the mechanism .But even without those two detailes we still can use the UPN acceptably to explain all existing phenomenon .

Thank you Moderator Harold from protecting me from 'science' and moving me to its antipol "pseudo" ( how about Also a tip or help in text formating ) ..... Please read the following : ..... Besides observing that the present physiscs theory can not explain many phenomenon we register , let's also notice its main problem , the absence of a firm , clear reference frame or measuring stick to gage the properties of the Universe ...... The UPN provides a reference frame that no other theory does and that's the simple reason why it can explain everithing since it proves that all is made out of the SuperFluid , its waves , vortices and harmonics ...... Here is the caveated reference frame : Nothingness ! ...... ( don't leave Harold , the good part starts now ) .... --- Explanation : Nothingness and Somethigness are mutually exclusive , hence there is a perfect relation that can be used to explain the properties of Nature/matter/SuperFluid without guessing or assuming , here is an example Harold : ........ How old is the Universe ? Present phhysics can not answer but the UPN is perfectly clear : since Nothigness ( the concept , an abstract ) exists since 'for ever' , its counterpart , the Somethigness , also exists since for ever . QED , done ! ..... Hey Harold , can you argue with that ? I chalange you ! ..... If you can't than you must return the UPN to the Physics forum and move the Quantum Theory to Pseudo Science ! ......... Go ahead Harold , I am waiting for you to argue or agree with this first step , determining the age of the Universe as was done above .......--------------- The concept of using the Nothigness to determine the properties of the Universe is the key of the UPN and has the following huge advantages : ...1) Nothigness , as an abstract will never interfeer ( enter ) with any math or formulas ........ 2) Nothigness is absolutelly tied to Somethigness as its reciprocal , where one is the other can not be ......... 3) Nothigness is Absolute , it doesn't have any grey areas , borders , buffer or a numerical value , it DOES NOT EXIST period . This is a powerful property because it implies precisely that where Nothigness is absent Somethigness Must be present . Harold , do you realize at this moment that the SIZE of the Universe was just stated in the previous sentance that you just read ? No ? Here is why , again thanks to Nothigness : can Nothigness be present anywhere at all ? Of course not , hence Somethigness must be present Everywhere . Does Nothigness has a Limit or space that it doesn't apply ? Of course not hence there are no limits to the size of Somethigness ( the Universe ) . QED , Harold , argue with this or return the UPN to its proper Science forum location and move the Quantum theory to Pseudo sciense please . I am saying this anticipating that you will not be able to dismiss the above logic ........ I am looking forward to your reply ! ........ Urod ...... August 12 , 2011 ....

Urod, please stop bumping your own threads. No one is interested.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Urod, please stop bumping your own threads. No one is interested.

OK , Harold , let the people speak their minds , after all it is Exactely the reason I posted here in the first place ........ HOWEVER Harold ...... before I leave Please SHOW us that you understood my UPN since YOU moved it here from `science` . ----- IT IS A CHALANGE , Harold , you can`t run away from it or your credibility will be ZERO , hence youèll disqualify your self as a Moderator for not understanding what you have an oppinion on !! HERE ( sorry , Formating my text is still out , you didnèt bother to offer HELP , Harold ! : ----------------------- ..... Please read the following : ..... Besides observing that the present physics theory can not explain many phenomenon we register , let's also notice its main problem , the absence of a firm , clear reference frame or measuring stick to gage the properties of the Universe at both scales , atomic and macro ...... The UPN provides a reference frame that no other theory does and that's the simple reason why it can explain everithing since it proves that all is made out of the SuperFluid , its waves , vortices and harmonics ...... Here is the caveated reference frame : Nothingness ! ...... ( don't leave Harold , the good part starts now ) .... --- Explanation : Nothingness and Somethigness are mutually exclusive , hence there is a perfect relation that can be used to explain the properties of Nature/matter/SuperFluid without guessing or assuming , here is an example Harold : ........ How old is the Universe ? Present phhysics can not answer but the UPN is perfectly clear : since Nothigness ( the concept , an abstract ) exists since 'for ever' ( Nothigness did not 'start' on a certain date ) , its counterpart , the Somethigness , the Universe also exists since for ever . There was no begining of the Nothigness hence there is no begining for the Somethigness , just as Nothigness will never end or closed down the Somethigness will also exist for ever , the Universe has no begining and no end on the Time scale . QED , done ! ..... Hey Harold , can you argue with that ? I chalange you ! ..... If you can't than you must return the UPN to the Physics forum and move the Quantum Theory to Pseudo Science ! ......... Go ahead Harold , I am waiting for you to argue or agree with this first step , determining the age of the Universe as was done above .......--------------- The concept of using the Nothigness to determine the properties of the Universe is the key the UPN uses and has the following huge advantages : ...1) Nothigness , as an abstract will never interfeer ( enter ) with any math or formulas ........ 2) Nothigness is absolutelly tied to Somethigness as its reciprocal , where one is the other can not be , this is a fact not theory ........ 3) Nothigness is Absolute , it doesn't have any grey areas , borders , buffer or a numerical value , it DOES NOT EXIST period . Those are powerful properties because it implies precisely that where Nothigness is absent Somethigness Must be present because Nothigness doesn't exist . Harold , do you realize at this moment that the SIZE of the Universe was just stated in the previous sentance that you just read ? No ? Here is why , again thanks to Nothigness : can Nothigness be "present" anywhere at all , are there Any restriction regarding where it can not be applied ? Of course not , hence its concept is valid anywhere so Somethigness must be present Everywhere . Does Nothigness has a Limit or space that it doesn't apply ? Of course not hence there are no limits to the size of Somethigness ( the Universe ) . QED , Harold , argue with this or return the UPN to its proper Science forum location and move the Quantum theory to Pseudo sciense please . I am saying this anticipating that you will not be able to dismiss the above logic ........ I am looking forward to your reply ! ........ Urod ...... August 12 , 2011 .......... BTW , please read ( not 'speed' ) the UPN from the begining and see why it is indeed the so-called grand unifying theory of physiscs .... all we need is a super computer to do the simulations ...... do you have any connections , Harold , who wants to make History ? ( observe also the super fluid math provided by Prof Ballagh , with the note that it is for a Granular super fluid , atomic , NOT the non-granular SuperFluid described by the UPN ) ......UPN original site ( at the end of this web page ) : .... Recipe for a Nation | Future shocking , an universal survival manual for any intelligent specie , in any galaxy , and it starts with a peaceful Revolution … the ultimate political Platform that you want in your life time !..... ALLL , also notice how my keyboard was screwd up while visiting the Science forum , I canèt type the question mark , it comes as É !! ...... New Management ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ-------------------- I am waiting Harold , for your reply , or fortfeit your credibility ........

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Urod, please stop bumping your own threads. No one is interested.

Seems like a more forceful warning is required...

Hey Urod,

You know that "nothingness can't exist" is not a true statement right? As long as there is anti-something to balance the "something", it all equates to nothing.

Originally Posted by The-Ology

Hey Urod,You know that "nothingness can't exist" is not a true statement right? As long as there is anti-something to balance the "something", it all equates to nothing.

I am sorry but "nothigness" is used in the UPN as a contrast to what "somethigness" can be in order to state with certainty those properties . .......... Since 'nothigness' doesn't exist 'somethigness' doesn't have an anti-somethigness , it is the default , the status quo since for ever , no 'Big Bang' of creation . ....... We are certain to state that nothing can be created from nothing hence 'somethigness' is omnipresent and hence there is no begining nor end of the Universe ...... See in the UPN the rest of the Nature properties emerge from this simple fact ....... Sorry , I can't format the text , the Admin confirmed problems .*********** NOTE to the people spoiling this Forum : if you can't find faults with the simple logic ( no math ) in the UPN and instead keep posting Junk ( such as useless comments , personal attacks and insults ) you are doing a fine job of describing your selfves as not suitable for a science disussion .. . Keep it up , we need to know who you are ... *************

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Urod, please stop bumping your own threads. No one is interested.

Seems like a more forceful warning is required...

Pal , this is a Science forum not MMA , we use LOGIC here , if you and Harold the Moderator can not digest the simple logic in the UPN and can not find any faults in it than What are you gonna do , beat me up ÉÉÉ ( questions marks , there is a virus in the Science Forum and the Admin knows it , it affects text formating too ).......... Please get a grip of your self , drop the gloves and show some Logic , or Exit the kitchen ..... Keep in mind that Google archives all this , what are you gonna do , change your User Name ......

Test test ???

Do you gear a constant buzzing as well?






*Joking

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Test test ???Do you gear a constant buzzing as well?*Joking

Ha ! ---- Yes I hear it , it's Static , not science ... not jking , not funny , just a great dissapointment looking back at the luck of rational in the majority of responses . I'll try the GLP , at least they don`t pretend to be into science . But I will recommend the Science Forum at gun point . Copies of this thread will be kept for a variety of reasons ...

Sorry for no text Format , the Admin can not fix it !! ) .............. No where in science could be found a solid , undisputable Frame or Point of Reference . ....... So far scientists believe that all is Relative , that illusions appear such as shrinking space and time when viewing fast moving systems . ------------- The UPN for the first time in science points to the absolute Reference System that was always in our face but because the scientists were looking for Material , ‘real’ things , they missed it .........................This absolute and universal reference system is … the ‘Nothingness’ . ............. No wonder it is the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) ! ....... ----- But let's not misunderstand it , nothihngness is not a reference point for the movement of a bycile , it is only for the general concept of Somethingness in order to clerify the general properties of the Universe . ------ Nothingness has the following perfect properties for an universal reference system :1) it is Universal , nothingness is the same everywhere and never changes ..................2) nothingness is also absolute and universal for that it doesn’t have a numerical value , not even zero since it doesn’t and can not exist , it is just a concept to express the absence of everything ...............................3) Nothingness is immune and independent of Size , Movement and Speed , it will always be the same ....................................4) since it is not physically existent , the nothingness does not enter , participate or interferes with any formulas , it is absolutely neutral .................................5) nothingness , representing the non-presence of Somethingness , it is not just universal but an absolute Negative of Somethingness , always present in concept , unaltered by anything .---------------------------Now say it loud : if Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) , means that the whole Universe must be filled by Something , also , since Nothingness is a timeless concept means that the Somethingness must also be present timelessly , hence the Universe is for Ever and since for ever . But also since Nothingness is a concept valid everywhere means that Everywhere is infinite , hence the Somethingness ( the Universe ) is infinite in size ..........................So you see , just like that , from the moment Nothingness is recognized as an Universal representation of the Existence of the Somethingness ( the Universe ) all other properties follow , unfold Naturally , unforced and Unavoidable !! ................‘Unavoidable’ is the operative word , there is no escape from the simple conclusions above , no fancy footing , no play-on-words .-----------------My contribution to science are only the simple things of :................1) providing the universal reference system , the concept of Nothingness , and how it relates and determines the properties of the Somethingness ( the Universe ) ..............................................2) bringing the logic road as far as to prove that the Somethingness ( the Universe ) must be a non-granular , continous Super Fluid ........................................3) that by proving the SuperFluid is the Universe , focus all science research on the simple principle that all phenomenon that can exist in the Universe must be only Waves or/and Vortices and the Harmonics that represent the mechanism of movement ( energy ) addition ( amplification ) and concentration ( fields ) ...............................If scientist can not understand this is not the Question ( super-computer simulations can be easily made ) , but Who would have the courage to start the process of replacing the Relativity with the UPN Cheers ..........................P.S. : the Recipe for a Nation and the original UPN available only by request .

Originally Posted by Urod

...‘Unavoidable’ is the operative word , there is no escape

Apparently. Urod, you have been asked to stop bumping your own threads. It's actually against forum rules, and for a good reason. When members browse the forum by "today's posts" they want to see something new. You've already made your case. Nobody bought it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Urod

...‘Unavoidable’ is the operative word , there is no escape

Apparently. Urod, you have been asked to stop bumping your own threads. It's actually against forum rules, and for a good reason. When members browse the forum by "today's posts" they want to see something new. You've already made your case. Nobody bought it.

Actualy it is something New but you didn't bother reading it !! ..... LOOK again , it explains what you missed , the Keystone and Reference Frame that doesn't exist in other theories ------------ Therefore you broke the Rules of a Moderator to be informed before posting a comment .... But you did this before ..... You can not moderate if you don't understand what you are moderating !! Frame it Harold !

Urod, you have been given a week off. When you come back, you need to have an answer to the following.
1. The UPN explanation for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
2. The UPN calculation for the precession of Mercury's perihelion.
3. UPN explanation of gravitational lensing.

You have a week to think about it.

I do understand what he is saying.. Its called a super fluid because there is no proper term for it. I wouldn't know what to call it. I am not a big fan of the BB but I think he might be on the cutting edge of a new theory. It is actually similar to string theory, except no extra dimentions. Instead of strings, he calls it superfluid. And I did read his entire post before I read some comments. I didnt read all the comments for im sure they are negative, like the last one. This is pseudoscience right? I would have posted it in new ideas haha. There just isn't enough research yet to say its not possible. maybe it is...

My perception, instead of tiny strings vibrating, infinitly small (for a lack of better words to choose from) "whirlpools of superfluid" spinning and twisting at an infinate speed, create everything. I like it. No BB, No rip, A continus cycle of infinity that will be insanly hard/expensive to prove...

Originally Posted by Brandon

I do understand what he is saying.. Its called a super fluid because there is no proper term for it. I wouldn't know what to call it. I am not a big fan of the BB but I think he might be on the cutting edge of a new theory. It is actually similar to string theory, except no extra dimentions. Instead of strings, he calls it superfluid. And I did read his entire post before I read some comments. I didnt read all the comments for im sure they are negative, like the last one. This is pseudoscience right? I would have posted it in new ideas haha. There just isn't enough research yet to say its not possible. maybe it is...My perception, instead of tiny strings vibrating, infinitly small (for a lack of better words to choose from) "whirlpools of superfluid" spinning and twisting at an infinate speed, create everything. I like it. No BB, No rip, A continus cycle of infinity that will be insanly hard/expensive to prove...

Hi Brandon , thank you for your understanding ! Brandon , indeed like you , to imagine an ultra 'thin' super-fluid spinning at the speed of light in extremely small vortices , to see that forming in more complex assemblies and developing stationary or moving harmonics representing fields , and seeing the vortices pulling in the sorounding SuperFluid from light years away that represents Gravity , you Must enjoy the world in its bare naked form and see it's simplicity at its foundation .Now , please , after reading the UPN and being Extremely critical , we need to squize out of it useful Formulas .The UPN still needs to explain better :1) What the SuperFluid really is , being non-granular and so extrodinarly 'thin' ( see 'deep space' ) is a chalange in comprehension 2) Why the Fundamental Vortices appear in the SuperFluid just as it was observed ( see UPN ) that vortices appear sponataneously in atomic ( granular ) super fluids in laboratory ( Prof. Ballagh , New Zealand , worked out the formulas for the granular super fluid Vortices , see UPN links ) . I had to give a name and so I choose Fundamental Vortices FV that appear in the SuperFluid - the Universe - to discern them from the observed vortices appearing in the atomic ( or granular ) compaunds like ultra cold Helium . The FVs ( extremely small and weak ) are the perpetual source of Movement in the Universe that we interpret as energy , FVs represent the Viscosity of the SuperFluid due to their continous Motion , FVs are the Cosmic Background Radiation of 2.7 K ( ?/memory ) . But the FVs MAY appear simultaneously in a Formation over the infinit Time scale of the Universe , the Formation being the core of a ( tiny ) Black Hole that will form a new galaxy by spewing Spun SuperFluid through its centre ( that spins at the speed of light ) and ejecting ( like an Extruding machine ) the spinning SuperFluid in Micro Vortices ( the sub-sub- ... particles ) .Here , just for you a very quick overlook . But please read the UPN from the start to check for logical errors .That's it , just those two things which , BTW , do not impeed research but are things good to know . I am looking forward to your reply !Cheers

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Urod, you have been given a week off. When you come back, you need to have an answer to the following. 1. The UPN explanation for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.2. The UPN calculation for the precession of Mercury's perihelion.3. UPN explanation of gravitational lensing.You have a week to think about it.

...................... Sorry all for the luck of my Text Formating , Harold & the Admin can not fix it for a Month !!!! -- ------Harold , if you would read the UPN you would be able to answer your self :........................1) the MM experiment was meant to detect ether . Harold , there is NO ether in the UPN , you didn't read it ! In the UPN all we are is SuperFluid including the measuring Instruments in the experiment !! Hence the experiment could have not detected the SuperFluid which does not behave as an ether ..................2) Harold , if you would have read the UPN you would understood that there is no math in it so far since I am not a matematician . You , as a moderator , should have realize that one of the reasons I displayed the UPN here is to ask for other's oppinions and constructive criticism . ----------But if you don't read it , like you , than you will ask things that are not yet developed in the theory , like the woble in Mercury's orbit . But the UPN explains the unexplaned Mercury behaviour by showing that Gravity is a Wave hence interactions all the way to hard snapping Harmonics can occur with gravity vawes . hence Mercury's variations specially since it is at such close range to the sun . You want a Formula to describe Mercury's variations , so it must include All influencing bodies all the way to Milky Way influence and more , all changing continiously , than take their gravity wakes and conbine them to find the gravity strenght at any point . But the positioning of all those gravity wave causing bodies , as UPN shows , change in the infinity of space in such a way that NEVER the absolute precisse positon of Any bodies will occur twice any where around us including Earth trajectory characteristics . ... Hence the formula will be practical only as a temporary aproximation .................... 3) Harold , are you sure that what was observed , Lensing , was due to gravity ? Can you Prove it is the gravity responsible for the effect before asking to explain it in the 'way' that you force it ? If you would read the UPN you would understand the simple explanation of gravity ( the result of a vortex spining the SuperFluid ) and therefore see that vortices can interact forming a variety of resulting and merging waves and vortices . So , if what was observed was due to gravity , the UPN permits for such interactions .......................I hope that helps Harold ......... BTW , when are you gona fix my Text Formating , is down for a month !! ......*** Now is my turn !...................Harold , the UPN explains the Key Stone experiment of Physics which is the dual slit experiment by showing that matter ( atoms , sub-particles ) are micro-vortices spinning and churning the SuperFluid at the speed of light HENCE being Both individual units ( particles ) and Waves/vortex in the same time just as the experimetal result shows ...................................Go ahead Harold , without cheating ( using the UPN ) please go ahead and explain the dual particle/wave nature by using the theory of your choice ............... You WILL get a Nobel if you'll explain it ! ---- BTW , here is really who will judge your answer , read carefully , excerpt from the UPN : ........................." http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/q...nics-1020.html ...................................“ … The wave-particle duality is best illustrated by a canonical experiment in quantum mechanics that’s generally referred to as the two-slit, or two-hole, experiment. As the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman ’39 once put it, “Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, ‘You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It’s the same thing.’ ” .............Conclusion : UPN explains gravity and its consequence in interactions but the present quantum doesn`t .... what Pseudo science means any more É.ÉÉÉÉÉ ( it`;s a screeching sound )

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Urod, you have been given a week off. When you come back, you need to have an answer to the following. 1. The UPN explanation for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.2. The UPN calculation for the precession of Mercury's perihelion.3. UPN explanation of gravitational lensing.You have a week to think about it.

Biologista , Harold , all participants , consider the questions asked in particular # 2 :----- The calculations of Mercury`s orbit and characteristics are of an Empirical nature ( observations generate formulas , not a theory ) ......... So I am asking Harold and Biologista to explain how did they arrived to that formula , to prove that gravity behaves how they say by explaining gravity ........ Since they will not be able to do so we deduce their theory can not explain the empirical found formulas hence the theory needs work ...... On the other hand the UPN can and does explain Gravity and it predicts slight variation of orbits and all other characteristics including Precession and orbit elongations because the Wave nature of gravity hence able to interact like a wave and even have Peaks and Harmonics with possible devastating effects on planetary orbits and planets themself ....... Did such Unexplained variations occured : .... YOU BET !! : Harvard : ...... 1916MNRAS..77..112J Page 112 ............... The Point obviously is that Those variation do not have a verifiable cause due to another body but just due to gravity waves interacting and forming temporary Harmonics among already present bodies ( i.e. no Nibiru ) ...... Can the Quantum explain this Biologista ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Nope ! But the UPN does ...... so which theory is Pseudoscience ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ( question Mark , QM , QM .... )--------------- Oh , BTW of my inability to format text in this Forum ,..... but after a while of posting the system disables my Question Mark sign and makes it a ÉÉÉÉÉ , a BLATANT computer violation - virus that screws my keyboard ....... ya , they Love me in the Admin !..............Conclusion : Biologista , Harold , all , Brandon of course , how about concentrating eforts to determine the very first formula derived from the UPN ..........

Urod, you had a week to answer 3 questions and you didn't answer any of them. You found an article from about 1919 where someone was having trouble calculating the orbit of Venus. You claimed your UPN could solve the problem, but it can't because it has no math in it, only hand-waving.

I was waiting to hear what you would say about the Michelson-Morley experiment, because your so-called superfluid sounds suspiciously like the aether. You solved that one by avoiding the question entirely.

Do you begin to see the problem?

As an aside, Urod, please don't make multiple posts if nobody has answered you. If you must add information, please edit your most recent post.

Urod,

I can't do anything about your text formatting. If you are copying and pasting from a word processor, maybe that is messing things up. Just type right in the reply box.

I see you edited your previous post to add some more hand-waving explanations. Hand-waving is not physics - it's useless. It reads like very bad science fiction. You need math. I recommend taking a physics class, so you can learn what real physics is like.

Originally Posted by Urod

Oh , BTW of my inability to format text in this Forum ,..... but after a while of posting the system disables my Question Mark sign and makes it a ÉÉÉÉÉ , a BLATANT computer violation - virus that screws my keyboard ....... ya , they Love me in the Admin !

Urod, you and I have exchanged messages on this issue already. I have no idea why you, and you alone, have problems formatting your text or using certain characters. I can assure you however, that it has nothing at all to do with this forum or the people who run it. I would ask you to please stop making that accusation.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Urod, you had a week to answer 3 questions and you didn't answer any of them. You found an article from about 1919 where someone was having trouble calculating the orbit of Venus. You claimed your UPN could solve the problem, but it can't because it has no math in it, only hand-waving.I was waiting to hear what you would say about the Michelson-Morley experiment, because your so-called superfluid sounds suspiciously like the aether. You solved that one by avoiding the question entirely.Do you begin to see the problem?

The problem I see is that you missed my answers already , above . ..... Here is the post again : ........ ...................... Sorry all for the luck of my Text Formating , Harold & the Admin can not fix it for a Month !!!! -- ------Harold , if you would read the UPN you would be able to answer your self :........................1) the MM experiment was meant to detect ether . Harold , there is NO ether in the UPN , you didn't read it ! In the UPN all we are is SuperFluid including the measuring Instruments in the experiment !! Hence the experiment could have not detected the SuperFluid which does not behave as an ether ..................2) Harold , if you would have read the UPN you would understood that there is no math in it so far since I am not a matematician . You , as a moderator , should have realize that one of the reasons I displayed the UPN here is to ask for other's oppinions and constructive criticism . ----------But if you don't read it , like you , than you will ask things that are not yet developed in the theory , like the woble in Mercury's orbit . But the UPN explains the unexplaned Mercury behaviour by showing that Gravity is a Wave hence interactions all the way to hard snapping Harmonics can occur with gravity vawes . hence Mercury's variations specially since it is at such close range to the sun . You want a Formula to describe Mercury's variations , so it must include All influencing bodies all the way to Milky Way influence and more , all changing continiously , than take their gravity wakes and conbine them to find the gravity strenght at any point . But the positioning of all those gravity wave causing bodies , as UPN shows , change in the infinity of space in such a way that NEVER the absolute precisse positon of Any bodies will occur twice any where around us including Earth trajectory characteristics . ... Hence the formula will be practical only as a temporary aproximation .................... 3) Harold , are you sure that what was observed , Lensing , was due to gravity ? Can you Prove it is the gravity responsible for the effect before asking to explain it in the 'way' that you force it ? If you would read the UPN you would understand the simple explanation of gravity ( the result of a vortex spining the SuperFluid ) and therefore see that vortices can interact forming a variety of resulting and merging waves and vortices . So , if what was observed was due to gravity , the UPN permits for such interactions .......................I hope that helps Harold ......... BTW , when are you gona fix my Text Formating , is down for a month !! ......*** Now is my turn !...................Harold , the UPN explains the Key Stone experiment of Physics which is the dual slit experiment by showing that matter ( atoms , sub-particles ) are micro-vortices spinning and churning the SuperFluid at the speed of light HENCE being Both individual units ( particles ) and Waves/vortex in the same time just as the experimetal result shows ...................................Go ahead Harold , without cheating ( using the UPN ) please go ahead and explain the dual particle/wave nature by using the theory of your choice ............... You WILL get a Nobel if you'll explain it ! ---- BTW , here is really who will judge your answer , read carefully , excerpt from the UPN : ........................." http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/q...nics-1020.html ...................................“ … The wave-particle duality is best illustrated by a canonical experiment in quantum mechanics that’s generally referred to as the two-slit, or two-hole, experiment. As the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman ’39 once put it, “Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, ‘You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It’s the same thing.’ ” .............Conclusion : UPN explains gravity and its consequence in interactions but the present quantum doesn`t .... what Pseudo science means any more É.ÉÉÉÉÉ ( it`;s a screeching sound )

In the OP you say:

...The Stability of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : since Nothingness can not and doesn’t exist , than Somethingness will always be present in the amounts existing today ( and since for ever ) and therefore Somethingness can not be created , destroyed , disappear or be reduced to Nothingness ( which can not exist ) . Hence the fabric ( Somethingness ) of the Universe is Absolutely stable in amount and forever lasting , filling all the possible spaces already .
Hence there is no Expansion of the Universe and a Big Bang could not possibly be the Creation of the Universe ...

Although I'm sure you're convinced of this for your own personal reasons there are logical arguments that have been around for over 40 years that take a different view based on Quantum Mechanics:

...The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory. Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever...

(ref. Inflation for Beginners )

You would do well to read the entire cited article by John Gribbin - it might provide you with some insight into why the the Standard Cosmological Model is widely accepted.

Also, any theory you propose to a scientific community such as this will need to be backed up with calculations that show how your ideas quantitatively predict well documented and reviewed observations and experiments. Our existing accepted theories have successfully met this requirement and your's will likewise be judged.

Chris

After reading through 83 posts I see that you've been asked repeatedly to back up your "logical theory" with math.

In all of the tedious reading I haven't seen two logically connected sentences from you, nor have I seen a single equation.

Don't bother replying to this post - I won't be viewing this thread again.

Chris

Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025

In the OP you say:.......... Our existing accepted theories have successfully met this requirement and your's will likewise be judged.Chris

....--------- With all respect and Not answering to Chris ...... Soooo , the Dogma presented saz that EVERY single scientist on Earth right Now is Drulling to have the Solution to the UNiverse carres her/his brain in the form of the Grand Unifying Theory of Nature , yet YOU , Chris , have the inspiration ( Nerve ) to say that all is OK in Physics and the present theories did , how You say it " .. have succrssfully met this requirement ... " LOL !! , Than Why every scientist is looking for the Grand Unifying Theory , Chris ??? ( NOT addressing Chris but only his oppinion , Biologista . ............. Look , no present theory outside of the UPN explains the Fundamentals about nature . They try to coil around an Empirical formula but Never yet able to explain all down to the the fabric of nature ..... Even the Particle Duality so fundamental to physics is not explained except by the UPN , so Like-Chris , why the bias ?? .......Shouldn't you promote the UPN as the the only explanation of what we are ? .... Or just point to the Logic Step ( they are numbered for this purpose ) and SHOW a fault with the UPN rather than stating that the present theories explain anything ( lies ) ..... Take a Valium Biologista , this was not a reply to Chris buit only to the General menthality reflecting his thoughs hence you have no reason ( yet ) to bann me ( even thougjh Google already did its job ) ............... I am using the Science Forum Editor and as you can see I can't format it ............ What will be next , the Inquisition ?? , a flat Earth ??

Originally Posted by Urod

Take a Valium Biologista , this was not a reply to Chris buit only to the General menthality reflecting his thoughs hence you have no reason ( yet ) to bann me ( even thougjh Google already did its job ) ............... I am using the Science Forum Editor and as you can see I can't format it ............ What will be next , the Inquisition ?? , a flat Earth ??

I'll take a valium if you drop the persecution complex. I never mentioned banning, but I'm starting to think about it now that you've mentioned it. Well done on that.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Urod

Take a Valium Biologista , this was not a reply to Chris buit only to the General menthality reflecting his thoughs hence you have no reason ( yet ) to bann me ( even thougjh Google already did its job ) ............... I am using the Science Forum Editor and as you can see I can't format it ............ What will be next , the Inquisition ?? , a flat Earth ??

I'll take a valium if you drop the persecution complex. I never mentioned banning, but I'm starting to think about it now that you've mentioned it. Well done on that.

Well , you didn't help me feel welcome , no ? ( look now I got the question mark back , but not the formating ... ).......Let's work together please ! ..... NEW : as you know CERN just ( seen on TV ) announced neutrinos slightly faster than light observed at LHC . .... Harold , Biologista , Brandon , Chris , all , in fairness , the Relativity doesn't allow but the UPN not just allows it but also explains it ridiculosly simple : as matter is micro-vortices ( see UPN text ) churning the SuperFluid ( what the Universe is made of ) would move faster in a linear way if their spin Axes would coincide with the direction of linear movement ...... In other words it is easier to screw a screw along its Axes then side ways ( Duh ! ) .... Right , UPN is full of Duh!s because it is so simple , just as Nature should be at its foundation ...... Hence if a micro-vortice ( a sub-sub- ... particle ) moves along its axes of rotation AND since the SuperFluid has a viscosity approaching negative infinity , it is possible to increase its linear speed if its rotation it is increased proportionaly so more SuperFluid can be sucked through ( similar to spinning the screw faster and so going forward through butter faster ) ...... This is OK with UPN and explained .... In the case of the Neutrinos being slightly faster than light can be explaind by the UPN : ,,using the general composition of the neutrinos as less complex and actually simpler and easier to churn through the SuperFluid than photons ., hence UPN predicts without an experiment that the neutrinos must be less complex and therefore lighter/smaller than photons .......... BTW of Formulas that can be extracted from the UPN : it will describe a micro-vortex or an association of ( forming sub- and particles ) moving through a pulsating ( micro-vorticing as observed in super fluids ) and turbulent SuperFluid where all kinds of waves interact . ....... YET , as strong as Gravity is holding stars within galaxies , our rods and cons can not sense it , we are gravity-blind inspite its powerful force , while Gravity is acting like a spinning vortex drowing in the sorounding ( super ) fluid , galaxies and all . ........ Actualy Surfing Gravity it is VERY real and definetly allowed by the UPN !! ... If you find this simple and exciting then read the UPN ( or contact me ) and get a hold and feel of another fantastic property of the SuperFluid : it is incompressible ! ......... think what that may mean .... Thank you Biologista for not banning me , yet ! .... Cheers !

what formatting are you trying to use?? Is it from an external word processor?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

what formatting are you trying to use?? Is it from an external word processor?

Thank you for trying to help ! ..... I am using only the editor provided by the Forum not a copy/paste from a word-processor .It start happening imediately after the Forum went down a month ago ........ Many thanks for your help !

Originally Posted by Urod

NEW : as you know CERN just ( seen on TV ) announced neutrinos slightly faster than light observed at LHC . .... Harold , Biologista , Brandon , Chris , all , in fairness , the Relativity doesn't allow but the UPN not just allows it but also explains it ridiculosly simple : as matter is micro-vortices ( see UPN text ) churning the SuperFluid ( what the Universe is made of ) would move faster in a linear way if their spin Axes would coincide with the direction of linear movement ...... In other words it is easier to screw a screw along its Axes then side ways ( Duh ! ) ....

I don't recall you making that prediction before. But it's hard to say since your posts are incomprehnsible word salad.

If you are just using the reply boxes here, are you using the "quick reply box, or are you going into the advanced reply box? (see button at bottom right of the quick reply box)

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Urod

NEW : as you know CERN just ( seen on TV ) announced neutrinos slightly faster than light observed at LHC . .... Harold , Biologista , Brandon , Chris , all , in fairness , the Relativity doesn't allow but the UPN not just allows it but also explains it ridiculosly simple : as matter is micro-vortices ( see UPN text ) churning the SuperFluid ( what the Universe is made of ) would move faster in a linear way if their spin Axes would coincide with the direction of linear movement ...... In other words it is easier to screw a screw along its Axes then side ways ( Duh ! ) ....

I don't recall you making that prediction before. But it's hard to say since your posts are incomprehnsible word salad.

MW , sorry about the text formating bjut the Admin can not fix it .......... As for the Prediction , it is in the UPN where it shows how a micro-vortex or -vortices can move faster then light , and explains the simple mechanism ( see my reply above , my hands are tyred , sorry ) ...... Not to long ago the Earth was acepted as flat and just like yesterday we accepted the large spaces inside atoms ...... now we are about to accept thet we are spinning micro-vortices churning a superfluid that borders in its viscosity the concept of nothigness , that 'thin' , a border line that still I try to imagine but I know that once dechiphered will tells us what the SuperFluid is and why its Fundamental Micro-Vortices appear 'sponaneously' ( and at 'random' , a word I don't believe in ) ...... So please MW , tell me what you think and if you can generate fundamental formulas to describe the movement ( energy/Force ) of a micro-vortex ( sub-sub- , particle ) ...... I am Sad that no one appreciates that the UPN explains the Particle Duality which is considered by many a s the Keystone of physics ... .... hurry , I am old and dying soon !

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If you are just using the reply boxes here, are you using the "quick reply box, or are you going into the advanced reply box? (see button at bottom right of the quick reply box)

Again , many thanks for helping !....... I am using the Advanced choice and do not change any default settings . .... Thanks !I am worry right now that today I posted too many replies and the system may shut me out , so if I don't reply it's not because I don't want to ....

Originally Posted by Urod

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If you are just using the reply boxes here, are you using the "quick reply box, or are you going into the advanced reply box? (see button at bottom right of the quick reply box)

Again , many thanks for helping !....... I am using the Advanced choice and do not change any default settings . .... Thanks !I am worry right now that today I posted too many replies and the system may shut me out , so if I don't reply it's not because I don't want to ....

There is no per day post limit that I know of.

The next question is what are the formatting markups you are attempting to use?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Urod

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If you are just using the reply boxes here, are you using the "quick reply box, or are you going into the advanced reply box? (see button at bottom right of the quick reply box)

Again , many thanks for helping !....... I am using the Advanced choice and do not change any default settings . .... Thanks !I am worry right now that today I posted too many replies and the system may shut me out , so if I don't reply it's not because I don't want to ....

There is no per day post limit that I know of.The next question is what are the formatting markups you are attempting to use?

All I need is "return" or "new line" . Would be nice to have Spaces too ... But what I am craving the most are ... constructive oppinions on UPN ... You are an Exceptionaly patient and Helpfull person , I am not used with this treatment here , Thank you !

If you are in advanced mode, all you should need to do is hit the enter key on you key board. Ditto for spaces, just hit the space bar.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If you are in advanced mode, all you should need to do is hit the enter key on you key board. Ditto for spaces, just hit the space bar.

You are right , and I do that since I type ...Let's beat the disruption and focus on the construcive roads .How would you express the Force needed to move a micro-vortex ( see UPN please ) with such components :,,1) size of the micro-vortex ( inverse proportional , IP ) ........2) direction of movement of the micro-vortex in relation to its own spin axe ,,,,, ( a Zero value if perfectly aligned showin luck of forward resistance to the movement , otherways IP ) .....3) speed of rotation ( faster creats a stronger attracting Gravity wave , hence it is Direct Propoertional , DP , in action with respect with a 'pushing' action or wave ) ... ....4) the interference caused by omni-present waves in the sorounding SuperFluid ( see UPN please ) ( this will vary with the vectors involved applying the Moving force on the micro-vortex ) .....5) if we are considering an Agregation of Micro-vortices forming a subparticle , their Fluid Dynamic Profile ( just as the Aerodynamic profile of an object ) will come into play in terms of how the SuperFluid is churn through the agregate of micro-vortices as an ansamble ( Zero when the churning is perfect , the flow of the sucked SuperFluid occuring at the speed of light ) .F = ..... No , I am not taking any chances to write something inacurate , I do need help in this matter . Please .... , Thank you !P.S. : if a space shipédrone can be nano-build to have a Fluid Dynamics Coeficient of Zero , it would mean that the space ship would be able to move at the speed of light . But , but if we put our minds at it we could increase artificialy the spin of the micro-vortices and so the ship could move proportionaly faster beyound the speed of light ..... Please note how at this point I lost the Question Mark : ÉÉÉÉ ....... Yes MW , there is a limit to my postings ....

what type of device are you using to access the site and what is the primary language of the device?

Originally Posted by Urod

Well , you didn't help me feel welcome , no ? ( look now I got the question mark back , but not the formating ... )

I exchanged several private messages with you in an attempt to fix that problem- it's very unfair of you to blame us for a problem that seems unique to you, or to accuse us of making you feel unwelcome when we've really been quite patient.

Originally Posted by Urod

NEW : as you know CERN just ( seen on TV ) announced neutrinos slightly faster than light observed at LHC .

Small point. This experiment was conducted at CERN but it had little or nothing to do with the LHC. It was the OPERA experiment, not the LHC.