Comments to: Space Vortex Theory: Einstein and Tewari's 'Cartesian Universe'

Posted on May 17, 2004, 12:43 pm
by Vladimir Rogozhin

12-Dimensial Line-Wave-Vortex Space (Complete "Cartesian Universe") at: http://ideabank.narod.ru

 

Posted on June 6, 2004, 3:58 pm
by Sepp

Here is a relevant comment received by e-mail: June 5, 04

Dear Sir:

Thank you for forwarding relevant material so that I can have some idea of the various concepts being developed. From your e-mail of May 13 (I really am slow!) Professor Rydin has a common problem: he believes relativity is valid! If he should be seriously interested in the truth about relativity, I am available. I am, however, tired of developing and sending material to people who have absolutely no intention of re-evaluating their scientific foundations. In the case of relativity it is necessary for science to go all the way back to Faraday.

Tewari, however, with a hollow electron based on Descarte's vortex theories is getting close. Unfortunately typical vortex theories, along with most related theories of science, are applied in the wrong dimensional space. The vortices, which are not exactly hollow, exist in a specific higher dimensional space. Similar to a three-dimensional finger entering a two-dimensional space (viz: Flatland) the transformations of cross-sections from oppositely directed vortices yield the electrons and protons in our physical space.

Such a transformation requires a major paradigmatic shift equal to that of Copernicus and Galileo. Since there are many paths to the truth‚ mine is not the only one but they will all require the same transformation. My material has been on the web for about ten years but my provider has been sold several times. My address is now pweb.jps.net/~cuny (link no longer active), the important part is "The Gods Told Us, We Chose To Forget". This is not your standard college physics but if you can at least conditionally accept the postulates, it becomes a Theory Of Everything. It logically derives (develops, constructs) structures in an energy field. As the stored energy is released, the structures form the vortices that have positive and negative spins of identically the same strength.

Once again, thank you for forwarding material.

Joe (Joseph F. Cuny)

 

Posted on June 17, 2004, 6:15 am
by Donna Garrett

I found your article fasinating although way over my head. When I read stuff like this I get what I feel is the true meaning of God.

 

Posted on June 18, 2004, 4:09 pm
by Sepp

A comment from Roger Rydin received 18 June:

Let me just make a short comment to the statements [above]. I am not a mathematical physicist, and am not interested in becoming one. The main problem with all of this is formulating the correct set of differential equations, if possible. My belief is that some sort of relativity is valid, but neither SRT or GRT are complete or correct in all cases (like GPS clocks) because of missing terms or incorrect terms. In any event, the physical consequences of relativity are often incorrectly interpreted (such as mass increasing with velocity). Specifically, I do not believe now that GRT has anything to do with the general motion of the universe.
I have had a series of interactions with Tewari. I do not believe that the electron is the fundamental particle, but rather that there are even smaller entities inside nucleons.

 

Posted on October 22, 2004, 5:23 pm
by socratus

Science & Philosophy. Religion & Physics. XXI c. Socratus.

At the end of 10-th, beginning of the 20-th years Sommerfeld
wrote to the Einstein :"I can help to development only
engineering of quanta.
You should construct their philosophy ".
However, the Einstein did not manage it to construct.
I have constructed philosophy of Quantum of light,
philosophy of Physics XXIc and on pages of my site I tell about it.

Many of physics consider, that: " the Physics is first of all Vacuum. "
P. Dirac wrote:
" Тhe problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem worth now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe vacuum,
how it is possible expect for the correct description something more complex? ".
It is completely correct.
Physics in Vacuum have groped true and condition
of infinite / eternal Vacuum characterized
with one simple physical parameter T=0K = -273,160C.
The philosophy of science begins from T=0K .
The physics begins from T=0K.
The religion begins from T=0K .
The origin of Existence begins from T=0K .

If you have time and desire, I ask you to visit my site
http/www.socratus.com
Thanks.
Good wishes.
Israel Sadovnik .

 

Posted on February 15, 2005, 12:20 am
by Ronald

Nice article, but I have several considerable criticisms with some of the points made.

1. I do comprehend the theory of the vacuum of space as being basically inhabited by vorteces of 'something', however, in this article there is no clear distinction made between the two vacuums inside and outside the conceptual barrier of the electron. A more elaborate explanation would greatly improve general understanding.

2: If, as you say, and I quote , "Nature creates only one fundamental particle, that is electron. [Positron is an oppositely rotating electron]. Nuclear particles are assemblies of electrons and positrons assembled ingeniously with strong electromagnetic forces and inward acceleration field from space" then you are being either incorrect or incomplete. For if a positron would be a truly counterspinning field in 3-dimensional space ( as it seems to be stated by you) then it could easily be turned into an electron merely by applying an electromagnetic field. This would align both vorteces into the same arrangement.

However, if you proceed to 4-dimensional space, which is where we live in actually, it is much easier to comprehend the positron as an electron with equal spin but opposite time-direction. Don't forget, just because WE can only sense one direction, doesn't mean time only HAS one direction.

3. The concept of gravitywaves at a velocity of c is in contradiction with observed reality. I know most scientists are trained to believe that gravity travels with velocity c, but in reality, rocket scientists, who actually have to work with sending space probes to other planets and such, work with gravity being instantaneous. The rocket scientists are clearly right, as they get the job done.

If you take a look at http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
you will see that there is in fact a lower limit derived by experimental data on the speed of gravity: not less than 2 x 10^10 c.

4. The concept of your cosmological expansion needs rethinking in this particular field, and I quote:
"These particles will be projected radially out at speed c, and during their motion will assemble into jets of hydrogen, forming galaxies with stars, planets, satellites."
Not only has is it been impossible to get any object with mass to move at c experimentally, it is also in contradiction with your own model. The electron is envisioned as a vortex with a barrier speed of c. However, if the speed of this electron itself is c, then one point of the vortex would move at speed 2xc, whereas another point would not move at all. This is impossible in any thought experiment. It would be possible if you would imply that the electron would then be converted into a photon, but I think that is both implausible and farfetched.

5. I think the measurements of the diameter of the electron need elaboration. In fact, there exist different experimental measurements of it's diameter, and mainstream science doesn't even agree wheter or not particles actually HAVE a diameter (being dualistic objects and such).

I'm absolutely convinced that both cases of Relativity are a complete sham and do not represent reality, for the obvious reason that advancements in QM (which has it own fundamental problems) clearly show it false. But the form of Vortex Theory mentioned here clearly needs more work.

Regards,
Ronald

 

Posted on February 16, 2005, 11:34 am
by Sepp

Here is the reply of Paramahamsa Tewari to Ronald's comments (Tewari replies in bold):

My thanks for your valuable comments. My reply is given against each of your questions.

Nice article, but I have several considerable criticisms with some of the points made.

1. I do comprehend the theory of the vacuum of space as being basically inhabited by vorteces of 'something', however, in this article there is no clear distinction made between the two vacuums inside and outside the conceptual barrier of the electron. A more elaborate explanation would greatly improve general understanding.

Vacuum is defined as three dimensional volume of nonmaterial fluid (massless, incompressible, continuous, non viscous) and possessing none of the known properties of matter except fluidity. The medium of space without any particles of matter (with mass property) with or without field (electrostatic, magnetic, electromagnetic, gravitational) is defined as 'vacuum' or 'space'. The fluid-space has a 'limiting angular velocity', that
is, 'limiting velocity gradient' --- ratio of c (speed of light transmission relative to space medium) and the radius of electron's central void.

Void:

Spherical zone of nothingness --- field less, energy less --- created at electron center due to breakdown of fluid space (vacuum) when limiting circulation at electron's vortex center (maximum possible velocity gradient) is reached. Void signifies 'absence of vacuum' that exists only at electron center as a dynamically stable spherical volume of fixed radius (electron radius).

2: If, as you say, and I quote , "Nature creates only one fundamental particle, that is electron. [Positron is an oppositely rotating electron]. Nuclear particles are assemblies of electrons and positrons assembled ingeniously with strong electromagnetic forces and inward acceleration field from space" then you are being either incorrect or incomplete. For if a positron would be a truly counterspinning field in 3-dimensional space ( as it seems to be stated by you) then it could easily be turned into an electron merely by applying an electromagnetic field. This would align both vorteces into the same arrangement.

However, if you proceed to 4-dimensional space, which is where we live in actually, it is much easier to comprehend the positron as an electron with equal spin but opposite time-direction. Don't forget, just because WE can only sense one direction, doesn't mean time only HAS one direction.

Yes, a free electron can be tilted axially (electrically/magnetically) and will behave as a positron, but within a nucleus the situation is different. The strongest field in the universe (acceleration field) is in electron structure; it is directed radially inward on electron's spherical interface (that spins at c and encloses the void): The magnitude of this inward field is: c squared / electron radius. Radial gradient of this field is electric field. In laboratory so high field that can disturb bonding of electron and positron and repulsion of electron and electron or positron and positron within nuclei, can not be produced. [Two electrons and two positrons diagonally located, create repulsive and attractive electrical forces and lead to a dynamically stable assembly; many such units assembled, create a neutron. When enclosed within a space vortex, neutron is seen as a proton].

But, within galactic centers where electrons are continuously created due to space circulation reaching c, half the electrons and positrons produced will get annihilated and produce gamma radiation, while the remaning may assemble under repulsive and attractive forces due to their opposite spins.

A moving electron approaching an observer will be seen as positron by the observer on the opposite end.

To explain the meaning of mass and charge, and discovering fundamental relations from the first principles that derive these quantities from electron structure and show as to why an electron possesses these properties quantitatively, any need for time-direction does not arise. Time seems to serve its function as a ratio of length and speed and not as a physical entity in the theory of structure of fundamental matter.

3. The concept of gravitywaves at a velocity of c is in contradiction with observed reality. I know most scientists are trained to believe that gravity travels with velocity c, but in reality, rocket scientists, who actually have to work with sending space probes to other planets and such, work with gravity being instantaneous. The rocket scientists are clearly right, as they get the job done.

If you take a look at http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
you will see that there is in fact a lower limit derived by experimental data on the speed of gravity: not less than 2 x 10^10 c.

Very true, gravity works instanteously. It is somewhat like this as per SVT: In a matter-less universe of fluid space consider creation of a single electron by limiting space circulation at some point P1. Within a space vortex, breakdown of space creates a spherical void of 10 raised to the power minus 11cm radius. The space within the volume of the void is spherically pushed out as a 'spherical compressive front' which transmits at speed c relative to the incompressible space of the universe, thus energising gravitationally (creating radial acceleration field) the whole universe in due time. Now if we place at some point P2 another electron, it will instantly experience gravity field of the first electron P1 because the gravity field of P1 already existed at P2 and needed no transmission from P1 to P2 when the second electron was placed at P2. Gravitational field, as an acceleration of space points in the vortex structure of electon, is the very structure of electron with which (along with electric and magnetic fields) electron can never be detached.

4. The concept of your cosmological expansion needs rethinking in this particular field, and I quote:
"These particles will be projected radially out at speed c, and during their motion will assemble into jets of hydrogen, forming galaxies with stars, planets, satellites."
Not only has is it been impossible to get any object with mass to move at c experimentally, it is also in contradiction with your own model. The electron is envisioned as a vortex with a barrier speed of c. However, if the speed of this electron itself is c, then one point of the vortex would move at speed 2xc, whereas another point would not move at all. This is impossible in any thought experiment. It would be possible if you would imply that the electron would then be converted into a photon, but I think that is both implausible and farfetched.

Electron is 'projected' at speed c because space circulates at c. But, very true, electrons do not continue to move at c after projection. They are retarded by their inward gravity fields. A single electron projected at c from the universal center retards to zero speed after a radial travel of: (1/2) (c squared / electron radius ) second squared, giving the minimum radius of about 2.25 x 10 raised to the power 31 cm.

But, theoritically, if an electron is made to move at speed just exceeding c, its circulation shall cease and its void will collapse to zero radius; the fields in its structure, starting from the interface, will start dying spreading at speed c relative to space; and this process will be seen as annihilation light with spherical front and center fixed at the dead electron center (unlike a photon with its center moving at speed c).

5. I think the measurements of the diameter of the electron need elaboration. In fact, there exist different experimental measurements of it's diameter, and mainstream science doesn't even agree wheter or not particles actually HAVE a diameter (being dualistic objects and such).

"There are several lengths that might aspire to be characteristic of the dimension of electron. If we proceed from modern theoretical electrodynamics, which has been established better than any other field theory, the conclusion seems to be that electron has enormous dimensions, not 10 raised to power minus 13 cm, as expected from classical physics, but 10 raised to the power minus 11cm" (a hundred times greater!) --- Philosophical Problems of Elementary Particle Physics: George Yankovsky; Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1968.

Only with the larger electron radius (out of the above two) and use of basic relations on mass and charge from electron structure derived in SVT, confirmation to the experimentally measured mass and charge of electron come about.

Many thanks for sending your comments.
Best wishes,
paramahamsa

I'm absolutely convinced that both cases of Relativity are a complete sham and do not represent reality, for the obvious reason that advancements in QM (which has it own fundamental problems) clearly show it false. But the form of Vortex Theory mentioned here clearly needs more work.

Regards,
Ronald

 

Posted on February 23, 2006, 7:01 pm
by c

we have to allow for the fact that their are neither a finite or infinite number of dimensions but an unknown but uncountable number... and that there does exist a theory of universal synogism that regulates them all

 

Posted on March 3, 2006, 3:38 pm
by socratus

The Vacuum and Special Relativity Theory.
Special Relativity Theory examines the behaviour of a quantum of light in the vacuum.
1) The First law of SRT - the speed of a quantum of light in vacuum has
a maximal magnitude (constant, absolute) of c=1.
2) SRT is not considered a gravitational field.
For this reason, Einstein created General Relativity Theory in 1915.
The field in which there is no gravitation is a vacuum.
3) This asserts that action in SRT occurs with particles in
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space. This space is absolute.
Mathematicians have constructed its model and speak
of this negative space as completely abstract.
Nobody sees that it has no connection to real existence.
This is similar to a sad joke.
For 100 years everyone has admired SRT.
Millions of articles, reviews and books have been written
and the United Nations has decided to establish 2005 as the centennial year of SRT.
Consider that all that is clear in this theory
is that negative four-dimensional space is abstract and has no real existence.
My God! There does not appear to be anyone to laugh at this joke!
Everyone searches for complex models of four-dimensional space, but truth lies in simplicity. All is very simple.
We meet the negative characteristic of space only in the vacuum, and in the vacuum,
space is merged with time (negative four-dimensional space).
According to the first law, the speed of light is absolute and movement occurs
in the absolute vacuum. So why does everyone speak and write that there is no
absolute movement; that only relative movement v =s/t is real?
Why does everyone say that there is no absolute reference system,
if the absolute speed can be only in absolute space?
Here we have one of the paradoxes in human intelligence.

Pythagoras, theory, Electrodynamics and SRT.
Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest and smallest triangle.
So mathematicians had decided, that this applies also to
the electromagnetic phenomena;
that the laws of a nature in the macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so.
In the macrocosm, Maxwell's laws apply
and in the microcosm, other laws, the laws of SRT operate.
These laws are interconnected.
SRT is a continuation of the development of electrodynamics.
* * *
1)What is the make up of the electron in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the charge - electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *
2) What is the make up of the electron in SRT?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorents, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham) were interested in the question:
What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) , creating an electrical field,
begins to move - rectilinearly?
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is, when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move rectilinearly,
during movement it gradually will change its geometrical form.
Having reached constant speed of c=1, its form will become a circle.
In such condition it is called a "quantum of light ",?? photon??.
And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is “electron “
An "electron" is an actively working “quantum of light??.
With such an interpretation, electrodynamics and SRT become one general theory.

 

Posted on June 7, 2008, 9:28 am
by Jon Fieldhouse

Particles are toroidal vorteces like smoke rings that each have two planes of rotation, general and inward. It is because of the second plane of rotation that they can be sorted into positive or negative. If you accept this structure then you need only add the effect of waves through the medium some of which caused by particle expansion others by particle motion (wakes)and critically THE MAGNUS FORCES on the particles that are after all spinning at the speed of light, and it is quite easy to describe all the forces of nature. Indeed all three fundamental forces, (elecric weak, electric strong and gravity) are all due to Magnus Forces axting on toroidal particle vorteces.

Jon Fieldhouse 2008

 

Posted on June 8, 2008, 8:36 am
by Alexis

Nice one Jon. You have really hit the nail on the head. If particles spin, and they exist in a medium, and there are waves in that medium, or the medium itself moves, then substantial Magnus forces must be generated. These forces have been totally overlooked and must be considered for their part in the workings of the universe at all levels. And I think you might be right, they might just very well prove to be the only forces that hold the universe together.

Alexis

 

Posted on January 1, 2011, 1:42 am
by Arthur Sanchez

Dear Tewari,

I really enjoy reading about your Vortex Theory. You are very correct about this. And all three dimensional objects have an "absolute" center.

With the basis of your physics on "immovable" ground, it is only a matter of time when perfectly accurate equations will be formulated.

You know as well as I know that relativity cannot accurately explain relativity. Only when the "absolute" point has been found can relativity be perfectly explained and calculated.

This is my rough understanding.

 

Posted on January 2, 2011, 10:12 am
by Sepp

Paramahamsa Tewari says by email:

I have the following views on Arthur Sanchez remarks.

Yes, centres of all three dimensional bodies are absolute and indicative of the underlying fluid substratum with respect to which they are marked.

An obeserver E on the Earth is not priveledged to say , as relativists argue, that he is the centre of the solar system because the Sun appears to go round the Earth. He has to analyse not only the apparent motion of the Sun around the earth but also the forces that carry the earth and the forces connected with the Sun -planet system to drive the planets. But for the discovery of Copernicus with the Sun in the solar system centre, Kepler's laws woud not have been discovered.

Then came Rene Descartes with his Vortex Theory, etherial propertyless substraum and cosmic solar vortex with the Sun at the centre of the solar system and the planets being taken around by the solar vortex. If E, in line with Descartes pilosophy and later as per SVT, postulates an earth vortex rotating the earth axially, carrying the moon around, and also now, as per him, driving the sun around the earth, he has to work out as follows.

Determine the maximum velocity field in the Earth vortex that rotates the Earth axially; find out the Earth vortex constant with the orbital motion of the Moon and its distance from the earth; applying Kepler's law as per which the speed of a planet falls inverly as the square root of its distance from the sun -- but now taking the earth as the primary and the Sun as the secondary-- he will find from calculations that the sun should orbit around the Earth with an orbital speed of (1 / 19.8) km / s , as against 29.8 km / s that he observes.[Earth orbits at 29.8 km / s around the sun, but for E it is the Sun orbiting the earth at he same speed] Clearly an absurd result! and this is because E has ignored the spatial forces that exist in solar system space that drive the planets around the sun.

Best wishes,

Paramahamsa

 

Posted on September 20, 2011, 12:01 am
by The Machine

Try combining vortex theory with wave length theory. Bounce off of all the particles spinning in circular motion at right angles downwards- particles bouncing off particles to accelerate anti gravity off the De Broglie Wavelength (particles in suspension) with magnetism and its relationship with electricity. E=hc/H combined with frequency over 200nm. Represent the vortex by a two cylinder cone and particles are shooting upwards from the bottom of the cone and boncouncing off the sides of the cone cylinders to force an object upwards in a double vortex that defies gravity.

 

Post a comment















Security code:




Please enter the security code displayed on the above grid