The (8) sphere or an (S) vortex

The hypothesis of the formation of a rotating (8) sphere and an (S) vortex

Particles are rotating elements in the shape of an (8)-ball, and when emitted they form a linear formation where every particle rotates in the same direction as the on in front and behind, and each particle sleep-streams (drafting) behind each other and forming a wave, this waves could flip-over and transform into a closed circular string; a spinning (8) where every particles back and front still rotates synchrony with the one in front and the one behind. Because of this formation of an (8) the wave gets wind up and generates an energy boost. This new 3 dimensional sphere  creates a new rotating energy field and is thus a new particle, that can start to form  a new linear wave, that also flip's-over and forming a new spinning (8) ... Energy would be measured by the rotation speed and the surface.

This hypothesis originated, from an idea of how the formation of DNA and new Stars could have originated. In the case of DNA I started of from the double helix that must have found his origin in (8) and continue to base this model on the composition of Phosphor atoms (2-8-5), that can form perfectly 180° "bridges", so 5-5-5-5 forms 2 x 360° or an eight, at all the different intersections. Each bridge puts tension on the whole structure, and preventing it by it's high speed to short circuit.

The sun could be a (8) sphere, just like the core of the earth and creating magnetic fields. Earth might very well had a chance to condense and form water thanks to the shade created by the moon, who later on might have been pushed aside by the earth, to rotate around our planet.

The Kármán vortex street is a term in fluid dynamics for a repeating pattern of swirling vortices caused by the unsteady separation of flow of a fluid over bluff bodies.

Oxygen molecules travel at the speed of 400 m/s

Light travels at the speed of 300 000 000 m/s

Now suppose that super tiny dark matter (or stardust I like to call ;-) surrounds us far more densely, and imagine that "electrons" are similar to the turbulences in the "Karman Vortex Street" , and the fact that there 's a flow.

Because of the small size of these particles and the high energy flow, the street can be relatively spun out much longer in a more straight wave. But the turbulence fields would be far more energetic, larger and denser than those of water molecules. The generated (S) vortex fields would be a transformer of stardust flow into electrons.

Now imagine that motion is a spiral, creating an upwards tunnel, wherein the (S) vortex-fields are like the flip-flopping vertices in the animation above, but 90°turned.

An (S) vortex seen from the top and front at fast and slow speed, screwing it's way up. Now look at the clip below of electrons popping up, they could very well be dense turbulence fields that are formed due to the flow between two opposite fields.

This dynamic of flow should resemble the clip of "The Motion of a Single Electron" below:

At the speed of light:


The principle of the 1 Quarter Phosphor (2-8-5) Bridge (180°), build out of 5 Phosphor elements to create the total of 20 parts that make up one (8)

Gravity Ray's and Star Dust (Dark Matter)

Either stardust is all there is and energy flows through it, or everything is formed out of bundles of stardust kept together by energy.

 

Gravity could be a field of emitted Stardust Particles or energy bundles that form concentrated vortices at regular distances. These turbulence spots, perhaps (8) balls, generate a downward spiral rotation that "screw" elements down to the ground, opposite to their beaming away direction.

 

A field of these vortices containing-rays, is build up out of a maze with an even number, to avoid contrasting rotation. For example a 6-cornered maze like a beehive, or squares otherwise to generate flow and avoid friction. Non-Emitted loose elements are pulled to the ground.

The emitted rays of stardust particles are like wires of a piece of cloth (see image below of silk warping"), who create turbulence knots at regular distances depending on the speed and the frequency they are emitted. They form a maze of gravity fields. The places where knots from different directional fields interlink, proton-like triskel vorticies of energy fields can be joined together, attracting stardust, to form electrons that spiral around the generated core.

Stardust-Turbulences could be the origin of Atoms:

 

(Grand Orbital Table: http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orbtable.htm)

These rays setup a framework of stardust (dark-matter) wherein all energy flows, and is passed along.

The generated field would be similar to this rotating diamond but spherical:


Transition field of inter connected Stardust fields:

Coils of particle coils, wind each other up

Seen from the front the whole (8) rotates in one direction, but seen from the top and the bottom, the upper- and lower part phase shift 180°, creating two oposite fields. Imagine the rotation at a much higher constant speed and you get a polarised sphere.

 

At every point of the (8) there is an opposite rotation takes place. Look at the image above with the X:
• In the 1st setting the X goes in one direction, straight forward.
• In the 2nd setting the X rotates, the Up- and Downside of each leg (\-/) goes in an opposite direction. Notice the X isn't connected in the middle it are just two legs.
• When you connect both legs on the top and at the bottom, you create a (8) sphere with opposite poles.

On the other sketch each sphere (8) is a wind-up coil, and has a certain tension (density), and they all turn synchronous with the coil in-front and behind. When for example 20 spinning coils form an 8 and short-circuit, they wind each other up, increasing tension, and create a bigger new coil (8) but smaller in size than the sum of the original coils because tension is much higher. Think of a "snakebite" you know when you twist and turns somebodies underarm, and it burns, it's an increase of tension, like the clip below:



Conclusion: there are no 2 physical fields, but because of the formation of an (8) shpere and the rotation of it in one direction, two forcefields that phase shift 180° are created with as result a (+) and a (-) pole.

A more extended (8) sphere

This model could be a better theory for the behavior of particles. When particles collide and are splashed apart, they are stretched until the point that they split into newer smaller particles, or join with other particles, and form new particles of different sizes. It is a different approach than up - or down quarks in the quantum mechanics model. A good mathematic simulation could compare it to existing results of particle collisions.

Electron Fields (8) and Nucleus (Triksel-ion)

E=mc² is all about rotation and centripetal force generating energy: the electron fields, volumes or shells (8) are generated by the nucleus (Triksel-ion). Mass is equal to surface (or volume), and linear "speed of light" is created by velocity.

Energy = Surface . Sines
Electron Spheres: 2 Sines (8) -> E=mc²
Nucleus: 3 Sines (T) -> E=mc³

Both are in balance with each other:

Surface of a sphere = 4.π.r²
10 = 3 π = π²
Rule of 5 -> r is always half of d (1/2) -> r = 5

Quantum model of a sodium atom

(http://www.howstuffworks.com/atom.htm)

"Space Time" is like a Screw, it's all about velocity twist and turn 360°.

Detailed photos of atoms

Quantum mechanics states that an electron doesn't exist as a single point, but spreads around the nucleus in a cloud known as an orbital. The soft blue spheres and split clouds seen in the images show two arrangements of the electrons in their orbitals in a carbon atom. (www.insidescience.org/research/first_detailed_photos_of_atoms)

Wave functions of the first five atomic orbitals. The three 2p orbitals each display a single angular node that has an orientation and a minimum at the center. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

Using an atomic force microscope (AFM), IBM researchers in Zurich have produced the first high-resolution image of the chemical structure of a single molecule. The molecule contained 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms.

Carbon 6C is presented in classic technical presentations as the image above, it is easy to present its "value" in this way but in reality the atom looks different as first images show. In that case a proton might very well be a (8) ball with a magnetic like polar field around it, being the "electron".

No Short Circuit

The particles cannot connect in a "short circuit" circle, but it would be possible in a twisted (8) formation, transferring the energy into rotational motion. This formation of a spinning "8" would alternate the formed group of particles into a stable shell, with an up (positive) and a down (negative) pole. This process could also happen during the formation of a new star:

Theory of Chaos

The graphics below are reconstructed "phase portrait" of regular flow in the Taylor-Couette system. These are representations based on the flow of water by Professor David J. Tritton. The flow of electricity might be similar.

In this model the string rotates along the sphere in one direction, in mine the string goes into 2 opposite directions, creating contrasting motion and opposite magnetic fields.

Images above by Dr. Gerd Pfister, University of Kiel Germany



The images below are simulations of random fractal called a - diffusion limited aggregate - it produces fern-like shapes that model lightning and other natural phenomena. Please have a look at the examples of the remarkable patterns produced by non-Euclidean limit sets, and compare them to my hypothesis of the flow of electricity at topic: Organisation of Flow - Electric Currency

Images are from Nina Hall's book: "The New Scientist" Guide to CHAOS

Protons - Quarks

Protons, the center of the atom, within the electron-field, might be build up out of an (8) with a Triskel on top that connects 3 sine-waves. This triple helix was something that Linus Pauling worked on in his quest to DNA,  prior to the Double Helix of Watson and Crick. 


This format creates 2 up and one down quark, but actually it is one string-formation where 2 sines go in the same direction and one in the oposite direction.


This resambles the modern scientific view of protons, where quarks are represented as single particles, 2 up and one down quark.

This triksel (T) could work as a directional hold on, to steer the electron-field. It also corresponds with the weight of atoms:


A short clip of how to construct a triskel (T) and (8) string formation, with some iron wire or your hands:

Quanta are Prrrrrotjes ; )

Organisation of Flow - Electric Currency

When the shells spin, there are only a few options for optimum flow, otherwise they will rotate against each other. This is the concept behind super conductors.

Example of multiple rotating particles in a closed environment:

Lightning is probably also hollow, just as Lightning Balls. The sample below of a hollow fulgurite (as most fulgurites are) might be proof for such a conclusion.


If it isn't hollow, it couldn't penetrate the ground this deep.

137 and it's relation to The God Particle

Leon Lederman, The God Particle.(Source pdf - p 5):

It was Richard Feynman, in fact, who suggested that all physicists put a sign up in their offices or homes to remind them of how much we don't know. The sign would say simply this: 137. One hundred thirty-seven is the inverse of something called the fine-structure constant. This number is related to the probability that an electron will emit or absorb a photon. The fine-structure constant also answers to the name alpha, and it can be arrived at by taking the square of the charge of the electron divided by the speed of light times Planck's constant. What all that verbiage means is that this one number, 137, contains the crux of electromagnetism (the electron), relativity (the velocity of light), and quantum theory (Planck's constant). It would be less unsettling if the relationship between all these important concepts turned out to be one or three or maybe a multiple of pi. But 137?
The most remarkable thing about this remarkable number is that it is dimension-free. The speed of light is about 300,000 kilometers per second. Abraham Lincoln was 6 feet 6 inches tall. Most numbers come with dimensions. But it turns out that when you combine the quantities that make up alpha, all the units cancel! One hundred thirty-seven comes by itself; it shows up naked all over the place. This means that scientists on Mars, or on the fourteenth planet of the star Sirius, using whatever god-awful units they have for charge, speed, and their version of Planck's constant, will also get 137. It is a pure number.
Physicists have agonized over 137 for the past fifty years. Werner Heisenberg once proclaimed that all the quandaries of quantum mechanics would shrivel up when 137 was finally explained.

The Mass–energy equivalence, in general science:
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. What we ordinarily call the mass of a body is always equal to the total energy inside, up to a factor that changes the units. This leads to:

E=mc²

Joules = (Kilogram-Meter²/Second² )

where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.

The Mass–energy equivalence, in my Hypothesis:
Energy (E) equals (=) the surface (volume - m) that the spinning "8" sphere covers (not the inside), multiplied by (.) the rotation speed of the two sides (c²) of the 8, both are 360° Sine-waves who are circles seen from the side or the front, and they bend all over the sphere/8 in exaclty the same way. This leads to:

Energy = surface . up sine wave . down sine wave
or Energy = surface . up circle . down circle
or Energy = surface . left circle . right circle

Energy = surface . circle²

E=mc²

Joules = (meters³)((Radians/second)²)

So there is something not correct one could even say wrong ^_^

To continue I did project it to: "The fine-structure constant also answers to the name alpha, and it can be arrived at by taking the square of the charge of the electron divided by the speed of light times Planck's constant. What all that verbiage means is that this one number, 137, contains the crux of electromagnetism (the electron), relativity (the velocity of light), and quantum theory (Planck's constant)."

Formula: 137=(E²/c).p

(Note: I have left the p of Planck out because eventually it makes no difference to understand the principle, you can add it if you wish, the result will be the same.)

This leads to: c . 137 = E²

Here you have to switch over to the scanned images, to get a better overview:

The air is full of radiating particles, when similar particles in the same flow,

 form a new particle (8) it multiplies it's energy x times.

I believe that sub-atomic-particles are flexible spheres, and that the result of finding new particles by colliding particles, is a probably case of spheres that are being stretched, during a collision, to the point that they split up in multiple way's, join others or form new smaller spheres that differ in shape, size and rotation/frequency, creating as such "new" particles.

Note: I probably can't match the 137 number to the more exact number. As my model is based on a perfect model and there is no such thing in nature, it's chaotic. So unless I start to manipulate it I don't see (at this moment) how I could match it.

More info Wikipedia:

Fine structure constant
Fundamental physicalconstant

An other problem/solution?

I got this comment (in purple):

It is well-known that 1024/8 equals 128, not 127; in fact, the very division is a little silly, because it is practically checking up what the 7th power of 2 is (after all, 8 is the cube of 2), so it couldn't have been an odd number, because all powers of 2, like all powers of all even numbers, are necessarily even!

Not only that, but you then also calculated that 137 times 8 equals 1096, and subtracted 1024 from it, whereas you found nothing wrong with the result being (obviously) 72, despite the fact that you had reached 137 times 8 from a blatant addition of 10 to the erroneous quotient of 127, which would necessitate a difference of 80, since 10 times 8, obviously, equals 80... Instead, you simply added another 8 for good measure!

So, yes I miscalculated, but as someone pointing out; "The Law of Fives is never wrong". And, this miscalculation may exactly point out, where the magic lays of the extra "8" (127 vs 128), deciding if an electron will emit or absorb a photon.

Magnetic field - Solar Wave - Aurora

The two opposing rotations of the (8) create have a different direction, causing different polar values on earth or on any other particle. Light are bigger composed particles (8)'s, magnetic particles are smaller (8)'s. They have different energy levels and different directional density fields. The magnetic field is less intense moves along with the rotation of the spinning (8), it is sucked up at the bottom of the (8) and pushed out at the top, a continuous flow creating Auroras near the poles.

Light is launched along with the rotation of the sun but it has it's own frequency, and at the level of particles, radiation is emitted.

Image bellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet

The Mandelbrot and the spinning (8)

If you compare the Mandelbrot to the (8) and it's intertwined behavior during linear movement, you only have to understand two things: 1st how the (8) rotates (see the 1st post on top), and 2nd the fact that neighboring (8)'s cannot rotate against each other, if so there would be friction and no flow, they have to turn in the same direction. Look at the drawing in the upper right corner, all the (8)'s spin nicely together, adding a 3th one at a to close intersection would cause contrasting rotation for one of the three neighboring (8)'s, this is also what creates the structure of lighting.

The black hole in the middle is the same as "Black Holes" in astronomy, it is the inside of the (8).

The Mandelbrot has that funny hearth-shaped form to start with because it is a projection, starting of from a circle on a blackboard, causing a deformation, this artificial deviation mirrors nicely the imperfections and complexities of nature, which makes this composition so interesting. On the image below of those aliens, the camera in the middle is spot on, and as of there the rest is deformed, but in this case the mirror is irregularly deformed, not like the virtual mathematical Mandelbrot-dimension, you can compare that dip of the Mandelbrots heart, with the camera, it is the starting point. 

Dimensions vs Sphere (8)

As stated above in the topic of the Mandelbrot, the hole in the Torus in the 4th dimension is there because it is mirrored from a mathematical blackboard, and stays in a fictional 4th dimension in contrast to the (8) sphere. Explanations about other dimensions start with; "Picture this, now imagine, ..." and it is amazing mathematical work very close to reality, but not 100%. 

More info:
www.dimensions-math.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_fibration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA (the 10th dimension)

The Genius of Einstein

The true genius of Einstein is to look at the heart of the matter, and see what the juggler is doing: he is tossing up a spinning (8).

Juggling three torches in a cascade pattern (time-lapse photograph)

Source Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_juggling

Infinity and Leonardo's Mona Lisa

To unravel the magic of the Mona Lisa, you have to look at her hands and the proportions between her face and her "décolleté". Her smile gives direction for the rotation of the vertical "8", and her lifted index finger of her right hand directs the horizontal "oo", and that's why this painting is so bright.

(click on image for large presentation)

Word is that Leonardo chose the gesture for her right hand in lieu of a wedding ring to depict Lisa as a virtuous woman and faithful wife. I think it's amazing that the composition is in such a way that it fits perfectly with the 8 oo, and as we know Leonardo was all about mechanics and motion. 

ConCERN?

Youtube: Electric explosions

A friend asked me; "Michel, what risks do you see connected to the giant collider of CERN?"

As a first note, I would like to point out that I might be wrong and that my hypothesis is perhaps complete nonsense. This said I find the mechanic I describe where a spinning "8" could form a sphere an interesting concept that might be the basis of particles, it is a conceptual idea, and I have to do more research to see if there is some reality to it. I have also based it on a different approach of physics, a different road.

You know the formulas of Galileo, Newton, Einstein and others just work because they are facts it's how everything works, but there is a difference when you look why and how elements behave the way they do. All these scientist have each contributed at the level they could have. Just like quantum mechanics it all works, the formulas are all right, only the exact knowledge of what cause gravity, acceleration and energy is missing, and that is what they are trying to find out at CERN, and they hope to prove their hypothesis by finding the Higg's particle, and it is at this level that I propose a different hypothesis.

If you ask me for the level of risk the LHC might be, well that is doing something that has never been done. Although the people at CERN have a lot of experience with similar experiments with tests at Fermilab. Perhaps it's just one tiny step extra, but this extra step could be like that little cookie in one of the Monty Python sketches if you know what I'm referring to.

In contrast to that, It could be that matter is build up out of these tiny bubbles / spheres that I propose, and by smashing them up into the more tiny particles, we might create projectiles that are dangerous.



I like to make the comparison, what would you prefer; somebody trowing a tennis ball at you at the speed of 60 mph, or a golf ball, or a bullet? Increase the speed, the weight, acceleration, rotation and such and things can be become dangerous. We could also be protesting at guy's trowing ping-pong balls at each other, making opposition look like ninnies.

If you look at Nobel price winner Marie Curie, she died from a decease, almost certainly contracted from exposure to radiation. Science in an unknown field is not always carefree.

Whatever the fact of the matter is do we need know? Do we want to take that risk just to find out, and when we do find out it is harmless, what is the next test?

In a very cynical way we could see the LHC as the biggest ignition every build, you have to know that concrete is condensed gas, the only fact we know is that we don't know, that is why they are also exited at CERN, I might be talking nonsense, but not knowing for sure, if I am, is what worries me.

I'm doing research into the hypothesis of the Higgs Particle, and the more you read about it the more you get sucked into the quest for this energy-field/particle, in such a way that no matter what, you want / need to find it, in such a way that scientists have become blinded for possible dangers, eventually it was curiosity who killed the cat.

best,

michel


A brief history of inventors and inventions of friction and explosions:
Lighting: creates fire
Caveman I: smashing rocks
Caveman II: rotating a stick of wood
Egyptians: petrol lamp
Chinese: putting sparks to Gunpowder
Michael Faraday: putting sparks to Benzeen -> Gasoline
Alfred Nobel: putting sparks to Dynamite
Einstein & co.: putting sparks to atoms -> Nuclear bomb
Hawking & co.: sparks at sub-atomic-level in a closed magnetic charged circular circuit underground -> ?

And in a perhaps far too sinister way, what if things do go wrong at the LHC, than Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" might be seen as the "Mein Kampf" for our planet. For example Hawking Radiation could be based on a misunderstanding of "black holes", unless it's not proven physically it could be wrong. I know it's not fair of me to pick out one person and one piece of literature, but he's the populare figure who stands as the icon of certain black-hole theology. And I might change my view as I get wiser (?) during my quest for a better understanding of this subject-matter. Somehow every movement seems to have it's resistance, and who knows maybe I'm just going through a Don Quichotte phase in my life, with a need to fight the big wind-mills >:o)



And as a final note: I only think you can oppose the LHC by providing better knowledge because some one doesn't like to be seen as ignorant; working man ok, poor ok, hippie ok, black-green-purple all ok to stand up, but when it comes to lack of knowledge people don't like to be associated with that. But you could also ask yourself  the question; "Do I know enough to give permission for an experiment of that scale, shouldn't I be more critiqual?"

For info of people who are conCERNed about the LHC project you can visit: 
www.scientificconcerns.com
http://lhc-concern.info
http://bigsciencenews.blogspot.com

Cosmic Rays

Topic in progress... Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, almost 10% are helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements and electrons (beta minus particles). The term ray is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

 

In 1936 Pfotzer discovered that maximum ionization occurs at about 15 km altitude. Thick atmosphere sustains stable life at sea level. Neutron flux at sea (ground) level: is about 105 neutrons/cm2-year with E>20 MeV

Could beams of cosmic rays created by the LHC, trigger an Avalanche Breakdown?

The LHC is an instrument that creates sub-atomic-sparks just like cosmic rays, couldn't one of those sparks cause a Runaway Breakdown, triggering an Avalanche Breakdown?

Runaway breakdown: In the upper atmosphere, cosmic rays striking air molecules within thunderstorms can supply the relativistic electrons which trigger a breakdown in "runaway" mode. The breakdown region is a conductive plasma many tens of meters long, and it can supply the "seed" which triggers a lightning flash.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_breakdown

Avalanche Breakdown: A phenomenon that can occur in both insulating and semiconducting materials. It is a form of electric current multiplication that can allow very large currents to flow within materials which are otherwise good insulators.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_breakdown

Concrete is a condensed gas, ...

I posted questions about this subject on the www.lhcportal.com/Forum, the name of the topic is: Creating "Sparks" not a lot of revealing responses though ...

And hey, check these figures out:

Note: In order to make a true negative Lichtenberg figures, you need to inject protons into the media. Because protons do not penetrate as far, you would need to use about 100 MeV to get similar penetration depth. Although making negative figures is theoretically possible, proton accelerators are considerably scarcer. Also, the resulting figure would become radioactive via neutron activation. (info: Bert Hickman from www.capturedlightning.com)

... thoughts to play with ...  ^_^

Black Holes and Planets?

Ok on this topic I may be going way to far, but I had a discussion about black-holes and Hawking Radiation and this lead to the following thoughts:

This point about Hawking Radiation keeps bugging me a bit. I can understand how a particle/anti-particle could be easily split by twist and turn with minimum force, even two objects with a vacuum in-between can be separated just like that, but I can't see how one giant force could separate those two, like a giant fan would blow away one particle while it's neighbor would just keep hanging around. Even if its because it has an opposite direction, at the moment that other particle turns a bit it's in the same direction as the one pulled down. It would also be logic that they both get sucked in, because they have a relation and if one gets pulled down, it could pull the other one with her/him, unless there is an other force pulling on the other but then I can't see how a black-hole would evolve?

String-theorists, professor Samir Mathur and his colleagues from the Ohio-state University came up with this representation of black-holes, a stringy "fuzzball with apparently a giant torus": http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/fuzzball.htm

Ok, perhaps HR is real, but than the anti-particle would attract electrons if I understand correct to form a new pair, but wouldn't this form a screen around the Black Hole and it would be like a giant gas-bubble full of those anti-particles a bit like Saturn even that planet has it's big phoebe-ring around it like that string-theory perception of a black hole and it just reflects sunlight. Also if you would let an apple fall into the black hole, according to Hawking Radiation at the event horizon half of it would fall in, while the other half keeps hanging around to create a new apple. Isn't it that case a Black hole the same as a planet ...

Note: I asked this question to a knowledgeable scientist and he told me: "I think your picture of the black hole is a bit simplistic ... saturn is not like a black hole, because particles falling on it hot the surface while in a black hole they would fall in .."

And on the side: physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - being sternly critical of Hawking's methods: "I don’t think the way he does it is good enough, ... He puts together theories in particle physics with gravity ... in a way which no theoretical particle physicist would believe..."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/higgs_v_hawking

O vs H

Water or H₂O is the combination of Oxigen (80) and Hydrogen (1H).



A bubble ring is an underwater ring vortex where an air bubble occupies the core of the vortex, forming a ring shape. The ring of air as well as the nearby water spins poloidally as it travels through the water, much like a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled off a person's arm.

H Bomb

Saved by the bell

Zach - Do nothing and nuclear testing will eventually come to an end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G-AiQyITGo

Star fusion - Nagleria gruberi fusion

Vortex History : Old Crackpots and Modern Mathematicians

In 1878 there was a book published by New Yorker Edwin D. Babbitt, called "The Principles of Light and Color" where at the 3rd chapter "The Etherio-Atomic Philosophy of Force" he comes up with this quite funky structure of the form of an Atom, and it correlates very much the sphere of Chaos-theory and also with my concept of a spinning (8). (His eccentric book can be downloaded at this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3277374/The-Principles-of-Light-and-Color-by-Edwin-D-Babbitt-1878)

A science-course at Yale-university (1999) classifies him as a "Crackpot" and comments on the "naïve" Babbitt:
For example in the 1860s Lord Kelvin had been suggesting that an atom could be understood as a "vortex" in the "ether". Of course Babbitt's "spirillae" are reminiscent of the windings of electromagnetic coils, and his "torrents" look like Faraday's lines of force. (http://www.chem.yale.edu/~chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html)

Image by mathematical CGI artist Paul Nylander  

When you look at the magnificent works of modern day mathematicians, such as a loxodromes based on the Riemann-Spere, based on Maxwell's line of induction, who are in extended sense synonymous with Faraday's line of force, I think they should give Babbit some credit to come up with such a concept. There is also a book called Babbitt (1922) by Sinclair Lewis, who won the first American nobel price for literature, a bit ironic one could say. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis)

But Helge Kragh 's book Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century tells us the real story; and the fact that this theory wasn't considered as fictional at the end of the 19ths century :

The most important of the nonelectromagnetic theories was the vortex atomic theory, originally suggested in 1867 by William Thomson (later, Lord Kelvin) and subsequently developed by a whole school of British mathematical physicists. According to this theory, the atoms were vortical modes of motion of a primitive, perfect fluid, usually identified with the ether. In his Adams Prize essay of 1882, young J. J. Thomson gave an elaborate account of the vortex theory and extended it to cover chemical problems, including affinity and dissociation. The theory was also applied to electromagnetism, gravitation, and optics and was an ambitious attempt to establish a unitary and continuous "theory of everything" based solely on the dynamics of the ether. As late as 1895, William Hicks gave an optimistic report on the state of art of the vortex atom at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS). Hicks's view of the goal of theoretical physics is worth quoting at some length:

While, on the one hand, the end of scientific investigation is the discovery of laws, on the other, science will have reached its highest goal when it shall have reduced ultimate laws to one or two, the necessity of which lies outside the sphere of our recognition. These ultimate laws—in the domain of physical science at least—will be the dynamical laws of the relations of matter to number, space, and time. The ultimate data will be number, matter, space, and time themselves. When these relations shall be known, all physical phenomena will be a branch of pure mathematics. (BAAS Report 1895, 595)

So Einstein must have been well aware of these theories, and that's probably why he alluded to "The juggler on the boat" (see topic: The Genius of Einstein).

Antje Pfannkuchen tells the whole story of the "Vortex-motion" concept in her paper The Unseen Universe of art: Vortex motion in the Ether (link to pdf)

Let me sketch out briefly the physics in question so I can then introduce their translation. The main point of interest is vortex motion. It started in hydrodynamics with a paper by the German scientist Hermann von Helmholtz who wrote on “Vortex motion in ideal fluids” in 1858. This text which brought the image of the vortex into the scope of 19th century physics was translated into English by Peter Guthrie Tait, a physicist and close collaborator of William Thomson’s or, as he is better known today: Lord Kelvin …

… Kelvin who had written in his paper on Vortex atoms: “To generate or to destroy ‘Wirbelbewegung’ (vortex motion) in a perfect fluid can only be an act of creative power.”

We know now that atoms aren't build up out of this structure but electrons, protons and photons might be as long as we don't have any photographic proof. As a matter of fact it turned out that the core of organic cells  has an almost unbelievable helix-structure (DNA).

Fields generated by flow.

A Von Karman Vortex in the clouds off Rishiri Island, Japan (source wiki)

A vortex street is not necessarily turbulent, the pattern is an alternating separation of flow, which is periodic and unsteady, but not turbulent. A bit like the flow generated by the propellors of the ferry, on the image below, it is the constant movement of an alternating motion.

It is possible to simulate vortex street at the speed of light in "Stardust" on a computer, we only need to keep the Reyonolds number in about the same range. So if we could find the kinematic viscosity of "stardust", we could scale a starting-point-cylinder and simulate it with the speed of light - it is possible to enter any value, so it also could be done at a lower speed (and probably way more easier and less CPU expensive) - when we keep the Re number in the same range (Re = (speed * length)/ kinematic viscosity). Note: this doesn't mean, that there could be additional effects included that would appear at the speed of light.

Pirouette

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind

Translation, Dutch to English:
Leo: Da kan ni -> That's Impossible!?
Gaston: Da's just -> It's correct.

Simulation of a rotating (8) electron field

Pi

A Spark.

The Dark Crystal

Many ages ago, in our arrogance and delusion,

 we shattered the pure Crystal and our world split apart.