Clumping Up is a Feature of a Vortex.

[astrocat]

When you stir your cofee, where do all the bubbles collect?

[01101001]

When you stir your cofee, where do all the bubbles collect?

No coffee. But I had some small amount of oil in water and when I stirred that, the oil droplets rose to the surface, and spun around, all over the surface -- not just the middle of the vortex.

[astrocat]

No coffee.

Point # 1... You didn't answer the question.


But I had some small amount of oil in water

Point # 2, ...Don't you mean on water, as in - floating on water?


and when I stirred that, the oil droplets rose to the surface,

Are these oil droplets heavier or lighter than water?


and spun around, all over the surface

Like it wasn't lieing on the surface ? Evenly spread, finding its own level?


-- not just the middle of the vortex.

No, I don't expect this oil, being a liquid, to form clumps in the middle. I understand oil spreads rapidly on water, the depth of the oil layer declining all the time. If it's just a 'skim' I doubt it would form a clump in the middle, but it might.

[Van Rijn]

astrocat, a question for you: What is the ATM argument you are proposing in this thread? Or is this a general science question?

[Hornblower]

On the surface of a rapidly rotating body of liquid I would expect bubbles to collect in the center. In an old fashioned centrifugal cream separator the cream does the same thing. (I date myself with this one. My mother spent her teen years on a small family farm in the 1930's.)

We can get clumping without a vortex or other such rotation. Lumpy gravy is a case in point.

Again, what does this have to do with cosmic clumping?

[01101001]

Point # 1... You didn't answer the question.

Guilty. What's the penalty, officer?

As I stated, I didn't have access to coffee. I thought I could help you with your thesis about clumping. You do have a thesis about clumping, don't you? What is it? The question was too hard for me to get the conclusion!


Point # 2, ...Don't you mean on water, as in - floating on water?

Oh dear. Oil in water. Then oil on water. I didn't feel I should try to control the oil. I just let it go where it would. Like bubbles in coffee.


Are these oil droplets heavier or lighter than water?

Tough one. There was much more water than oil, several orders of magnitude, so I'd have to say the water was heavier. Well, hey, the oil droplets floated. Like bubbles in coffee. As I recall my grade-school science, that means they were less dense than water. Agree? But, it could have been a surface-tension thing, though, like one can float a steel needle on top of water. It was olive oil. Conditions were at near sea level and room temperature. Probably less dense, huh? Extra virgin! Should I look it up on the Web?


Like it wasn't lieing on the surface ? Evenly spread, finding its own level?

Lying? Just a lot of droplets, especially after stirring. There was not enough oil for it to lie on the surface as a layer. It was not evenly spread. Picture "bubbles" of oil on water. Like bubbles in coffee.


No, I don't expect this oil, being a liquid, to form clumps in the middle. I understand oil spreads rapidly on water, the depth of the oil layer declining all the time. If it's just a 'skim' I doubt it would form a clump in the middle, but it might.

The oil, sure didn't form clumps in the middle, but, like I said, the droplets also didn't form a layer, didn't spread rapidly as you seem to think you understand. The droplets just drifted about in the vortex current. Sometimes two droplets would merge to form one larger. Clumping? But, they kept doing that even after the vortex was no longer observable.

I guess clumping up isn't a feature of a vortex, eh? How do bubbles of air in coffee act? Different? Why do you suppose bubbles of air and bubbles of oil act differently? Would decaf make a difference?

Do you plan on making other fascinating assertions in the exciting field of culinary science? About marshmallows in hot cocoa? Barley in soup? Do you like barley in soup as much as I do? Blueberries in heavy cream? Mmm.

Glad I could help.

[astrocat]

astrocat, a question for you: What is the ATM argument you are proposing in this thread? Or is this a general science question?

Science is an all-encompassing field to me. It's all one. Relative. I posed a question, and have not yet received an answer. I simply wonder why?

[astrocat]

On the surface of a rapidly rotating body of liquid I would expect bubbles to collect in the center.

You win, Hornblower, my respect.


In an old fashioned centrifugal cream separator the cream does the same thing. (I date myself with this one. My mother spent her teen years on a small family farm in the 1930's.)

Great example.


We can get clumping without a vortex or other such rotation. Lumpy gravy is a case in point. ... not cle ar about that one. Was a clumping agent added? Was there stirring?

I thought about how, in the corner of a building, where a mini-twister gathers the detritus into a neat central clump, or say, dissolving salt in a bowl, when I stirred it, how the salt clumped up on the bottom...

Even the vortex at the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner - where particles of dust become clumps... It's almost like, to me, that this clumping up happens exponentially towards the center of a vortex.


Again, what does this have to do with cosmic clumping? I'm not at this point sure, but does Mainstream Science admit to the likely-hood/ possibility, no matter how faint, of Vorteces (plural of vortex) in Space?

[jamini]

astrocat - Do you have an ATM theory to present? If so, will it be accompanied with actual math and physics predicated on a thorough understanding of mainstream science or just another series of disarticulated misrepresentations of mainstream views, obfuscated and strung together to form a convoluted distortion of your own personal beliefs? In other words, how will this presentation demonstrably differ from your last few unfounded and incoherent diatribes?

[astrocat]

Guilty. What's the penalty, officer? Quite okay, 01101001, long as I know where you're coming from.


As I stated, I didn't have access to coffee. It's okay, I guess....


I thought I could help you with your thesis about clumping. You do have a thesis about clumping, don't you? What is it? The question was too hard for me to get the conclusion! Sorry, if it taxed your 'magination.


Oh dear. Oil in water. Then oil on water. I didn't feel I should try to control the oil. I just let it go where it would. Like bubbles in coffee.



Tough one. There was much more water than oil, several orders of magnitude, so I'd have to say the water was heavier. Well, hey, the oil droplets floated. Like bubbles in coffee. As I recall my grade-school science, that means they were less dense than water. Agree? Tough one? Are we being honest here? Bear in mind, 01101001, I know your angle. Yes, of course, I agree with you.


But, it could have been a surface-tension thing, though, like one can float a steel needle on top of water. It was olive oil. Conditions were at near sea level and room temperature. Probably less dense, huh? Extra virgin! Should I look it up on the Web? Aha! We find out. Surface tension.. Olive oil... Why didn't you say this right away? And yes again, you may certainly look it up on the Web.




Lying? Just a lot of droplets, especially after stirring. There was not enough oil for it to lie on the surface as a layer. It was not evenly spread. Picture "bubbles" of oil on water. Like bubbles in coffee. Like lots of little clumps right?


The oil, sure didn't form clumps in the middle, but, like I said, the droplets also didn't form a layer, didn't spread rapidly as you seem to think you understand. Thanks for settin' me straight on that.


The droplets just drifted about in the vortex current. Sometimes two droplets would merge to form one larger. Clumping? But, they kept doing that even after the vortex was no longer observable. I still think, because this oil is lighter than water, and like cream floating on milk, that if this oil was in a container that was big enough, and you stirred it, it would tend to clump up in the center, altho' this may not be immediately obvious.


I guess clumping up isn't a feature of a vortex, eh? How do bubbles of air in coffee act? Different? Why do you suppose bubbles of air and bubbles of oil act differently? Would decaf make a difference? Can't see it, huh?


Do you plan on making other fascinating assertions in the exciting field of culinary science? About marshmallows in hot cocoa? Barley in soup? Do you like barley in soup as much as I do? Blueberries in heavy cream? Mmm.

Glad I could help. No problem, 01101001 - if I got the number wrong, I apologise.

[astrocat]

astrocat - Do you have an ATM theory to present? If so, will it be accompanied with actual math and physics predicated on a thorough understanding of mainstream science or just another series of disarticulated misrepresentations of mainstream views, obfuscated and strung together to form a convoluted distortion of your own personal beliefs? In other words, how will this presentation demonstrably differ from your last few unfounded and incoherent diatribes?

Yes I have an ATM theory to present. I have a fairly good grasp of the laws that govern my views, and not 'just another....'

I have faith in these laws to see me through. This presentation will differ - and has, so far differed, from my last 'few' ... 'diatribes' - wow! by 'exploring' the possibilities of vorteces in Space, if there are any... Is this a valid subject? Or not?

[jamini]

Yes I have an ATM theory to present. I have a fairly good grasp of the laws that govern my views, and not 'just another....'

I have faith in these laws to see me through. This presentation will differ - and has, so far differed, from my last 'few' ... 'diatribes' - wow! by 'exploring' the possibilities of vorteces [sic] in Space, if there are any... Is this a valid subject? Or not?

Vortexes in space is a valid concept and congruent with GR, to the extent that matter warps spacetime. However, as you started a topic in the ATM section, it suggests that you are alluding to the whole of space existing as some type of rotating Godel model. If that’s the case, as you argued in other similar topics, then I would expect to see your corresponding physics presented forthwith. For instance, what manifold, metrics and tensors will you be using to describe the parameters that comprise your model?

[01101001]

I still think, because this oil is lighter than water, and like cream floating on milk, that if this oil was in a container that was big enough, and you stirred it, it would tend to clump up in the center, altho' this may not be immediately obvious.

I looked at the experiment again today. All visible rotation had ceased hours ago. There were a couple hundred oil droplets now floating on the surface of the water. One was about the size of a US quarter-dollar coin, one a nickel, two like dimes, maybe 6 half that size, and the rest, smaller and smaller and more numerous. One of the dime-size drops occupied the center. The rest were pretty evenly distributed about, to me, in no way suggesting that there ever had been a vortex.

When the vortex was in action, there didn't seem to be any more clumping, if you will, droplet-joining, in the center than elsewhere. As I recall there may even have been a little less. Most of it seemed to occur in the space in between the center and the cup itself, where there was the most movement.

OK, I'll rerun it and see if there's anything special about the center of the vortex. Done. Had to change a variable. Can you believe I'm out of olive oil? I switched to canola. It seemed to behave likewise. The droplet joining, while the vortex was vigorous, definitely happened away from the center. The largest joinings actually were happening closer to the outer edge than the center. Sorry, I can't watch it all day. Dum-de-dum. Five minutes later now, rotation is imperceptible and the most oil-free area of the surface is the center. Why do you suppose?

Can you explain why I am reporting this and what your conclusion is? It still isn't clear to me what you are claiming. What property of the vortex is it that makes the oil droplets tend to do their hooking up away from the center?

More data: I spied some orange oil for wood furniture and decided to try that. It's a lighter oil, less viscous than the olive and canola. Smells good, too. Its droplets, too, avoided the vortex center, and of course avoided joining up there, and did something different at the edge: formed a "droplet" so large that it became a solid ring of floating orange oil around the outside edge -- as far from the center as it could get. Fascinating.

[mugaliens]

So you're postulating that the center of our Galaxies would exist predominantly of lighter elements, while the nether regions would exist predominantly of heavier elements?

[Van Rijn]

Yes I have an ATM theory to present. I have a fairly good grasp of the laws that govern my views, and not 'just another....'


Then by all means, present it. What is your ATM argument for this thread?

[Van Rijn]

Science is an all-encompassing field to me. It's all one. Relative. I posed a question, and have not yet received an answer. I simply wonder why?

Because this is the ATM section. That's why I asked if your OP was a general science question, or if you were proposing an ATM argument. If it was a general science question, then it would be better to ask it in the general science section. It isn't space or astronomy related, so it doesn't belong in Q&A, and if it is part of an ATM argument, it's up to you to show that.

[astrocat]

I looked at the experiment again today. All visible rotation had ceased hours ago. There were a couple hundred oil droplets now floating on the surface of the water. One was about the size of a US quarter-dollar coin, one a nickel, two like dimes, maybe 6 half that size, and the rest, smaller and smaller and more numerous. One of the dime-size drops occupied the center. The rest were pretty evenly distributed about, to me, in no way suggesting that there ever had been a vortex.

Of course, one can find an exception to almost any rule. I guess surface tension and other extraneous matters caused you to have difficultywith the experiment.


When the vortex was in action, there didn't seem to be any more clumping, if you will, droplet-joining, in the center than elsewhere. As I recall there may even have been a little less. Most of it seemed to occur in the space in between the center and the cup itself, where there was the most movement. I think I'd have to be there.


OK, I'll rerun it and see if there's anything special about the center of the vortex. Done. Had to change a variable. Can you believe I'm out of olive oil? I switched to canola. It seemed to behave likewise. The droplet joining, while the vortex was vigorous, definitely happened away from the center. The largest joinings actually were happening closer to the outer edge than the center. Sorry, I can't watch it all day. Dum-de-dum. Five minutes later now, rotation is imperceptible and the most oil-free area of the surface is the center. Why do you suppose? Surface tension? There could be any number of reasons why that experiment failed to convince you.


Can you explain why I am reporting this and what your conclusion is? I assume you are reporting this in an effort to refute my argument. I conclude that I don't think you've suceeded.


It still isn't clear to me what you are claiming. That Clumping Up is a feature of a vortex.


What property of the vortex is it that makes the oil droplets tend to do their hooking up away from the center? I'm beginning to wonder if oil droplets make the best example.


More data: I spied some orange oil for wood furniture and decided to try that. It's a lighter oil, less viscous than the olive and canola. Smells good, too. Its droplets, too, avoided the vortex center, and of course avoided joining up there, and did something different at the edge: formed a "droplet" so large that it became a solid ring of floating orange oil around the outside edge -- as far from the center as it could get. Fascinating. Except you forgot something....

Originally, you had a needle suspended on the surface of the oil. Check it out! Now, while you were stirring, and all the rest, you didn't notice it slip away from the oil, and sink to the bottom.

I'm a scientist, you see, and if a needle is part of the experiment - I want to see it mentioned in the conclusion. l looked for this needle (you didn't know I was there) and after you had done all your stirring, I saw it - turning slowly in the current, there - right there - on the bottom, in the center.

[astrocat]

Because this is the ATM section. That's why I asked if your OP was a general science question, or if you were proposing an ATM argument. If it was a general science question, then it would be better to ask it in the general science section. It isn't space or astronomy related, so it doesn't belong in Q&A, and if it is part of an ATM argument, it's up to you to show that. I'm presently investigating the 'likelyhood/ impossibility' of finding a vortex in Space. I need help here. What is the mainstream view?

[astrocat]

So you're postulating that the center of our Galaxies would exist predominantly of lighter elements, while the nether regions would exist predominantly of heavier elements? Good question. Yes, so far, there have been 'bandied about' various vortices with the lighter material (for example 'cream in a rotating vat of milk) rising to the top center. But what if the 'clumping material' was denser than the medium in which it travelled..?

I was dissolving salt in a bowl of water - and when I stirred, the salt formed a central clump on the bottom. Anybody have a similar experience?

[astrocat]

Vortexes in space is a valid concept and congruent with GR, to the extent that matter warps spacetime. Again, and for the fourth time now, I find myself thanking you for your most valuable input.


However, as you started a topic in the ATM section, it suggests that you are alluding to the whole of space existing as some type of rotating Godel model. Godel? don't tell me someone beat me to it!

I'll certainly research that, and get back to you.


If that’s the case, as you argued in other similar topics, then I would expect to see your corresponding physics presented forthwith. For instance, what manifold, metrics and tensors will you be using to describe the parameters that comprise your model? Manifold, Metrics and Tensor. Yes, of course, Jamini. Right away.

[tusenfem]

Is there actually an ATM theory presented here, or is there a question being asked here? What is it that astrocat is trying to get to know? If there are vortices in space? Then this should be in Q&A. Or does the cat want to present a model of the universe where all matter is constructed by vortices, if so, then indeed this has already been presented a long time ago by Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) (http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DA026SECT11).

Juste being quite puzzled by this whole thread.

[John Mendenhall]

Vortexes

One vortex, two vortices.

[John Mendenhall]

I'm presently investigating the 'likelyhood/ impossibility' of finding a vortex in Space. I need help here. What is the mainstream view?

What kind of vortex? Matter? Space? Time? What scale?

[Mister Earl]

What kind of vortex? Matter? Space? Time? What scale?

Yes, it would help to understand the theory being put forth if we knew what medium the vortex is proposed to exist in.

[astrocat]

Is there actually an ATM theory presented here, or is there a question being asked here? What is it that astrocat is trying to get to know? If there are vortices in space? I'm sure there are vortices in Space. I just wondered if anybody else knew of any?


Or does the cat want to present a model of the universe where all matter is constructed by vortices, if so, then indeed this has already been presented a long time ago by Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) (http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DA026SECT11). My reading tells me Descartes thought of the Solar System as a Vortex. Not my feeling at all.


Juste being quite puzzled by this whole thread. Clumping Up is a genuine Physical Phenomenon, with a When, where, why and how.
I think the discovery that 'Clumping Up is a feature of a vortex' is an important statement in Science.

[astrocat]

One vortex, two vortices.

Thank you, John Mendenhall.

[astrocat]

What kind of vortex? Matter? Space? Time? What scale? Any Vortex. I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about 'The Vortex in such and such a place...' in the sky.

Vortices come in different shapes, some long and thin w. long tails. Others are basically flat, lying horizontally.

Yes, vortices made of matter, in Space. I imagine some must be huge!

[astrocat]

Yes, it would help to understand the theory being put forth if we knew what medium the vortex is proposed to exist in. Hi, Mr. Earl. I see two different types of Vortex - active and passive.

A passive vortex is one you create thru' stirring. It goes for a while, and then peters out.

An Active vortex is one with a 'motor', like the one created by a Vacuum Cleaner (electric motor) or a sinkful of water when you pull the plug (Gravity operated). This type requires no human input.

Two Active Vortices, two different media - air and dust for one and water for another...

[astrocat]

Vortexes in space is a valid concept and congruent with GR, to the extent that matter warps spacetime. However, as you started a topic in the ATM section, it suggests that you are alluding to the whole of space existing as some type of rotating Godel model.

Godel, like me, was a friend of Einstein. I have read some of his work but it escapes me - 'the whole of Space... Godel Model'. This I could not find at all. I said I would get back to you on this.

No, Jamini, I have never heard anybody else say Vortices lead to Clumping Up. I actually believe I am the first to notice this phenomenon. I think this is already, an important contribution to Science.

[tusenfem]

astrocat
Why don't you just present your model, instead of keeping us in the dark and throwing out our ideas about what you want to know. I can see a vortex in my bathtub when I empty it, I can imagine a vortex near a magnetized accreting object etc. etc.



A passive vortex is one you create thru' stirring. It goes for a while, and then peters out.

An Active vortex is one with a 'motor', like the one created by a Vacuum Cleaner (electric motor) or a sinkful of water when you pull the plug (Gravity operated). This type requires no human input.


This is not really two different kinds of vortices. If you keep on stirring the vortex will remain in your coffee mug.
If you turn off the motor of your vacuum cleaner, the vortex will "peter out".
So there is no real difference, it just depends on the driver and it has nothing to do with gas and water. If the driver is turned off the vortex will dissipate, if the driver is kept turned on the vortex will remain.

[John Mendenhall]

You might want to check the Wiki article "Vortex", then decide what kind of vortex you are most interested in. The section on the types of rotation is surprising.

Notice how cleverly I avoided the plural (plurices?).

Regards, John M.

[astrocat]

You might want to check the Wiki article "Vortex", then decide what kind of vortex you are most interested in. The section on the types of rotation is surprising. Yes, John, I have just done this.

Wiki says there are two types, 1) Forced (put on a turntable) and
2) Free - like a sinkful of water when you pull the plug.

Yes, it is the 'free' type that most interests me. In an interesting newspaper article I read where Dr Allan Dressler and his 'Seven Samurai' noticed a 'Pronounced Steaming Effect' at work within the Cosmos.

They noticed that our Local Group (including the Milky Way) was racing towards the Hydra Centauri Group, but we can never reach it, for the Hydra Centauri Group are leaving us faster than we are arriving.

The Hydra Centauri Group, in its turn, is approaching another, even more massive Group they named, 'The Great Attractor'. But the Great Attractor too, is leaving the Hydra Centauri Group behind as it chases some other Group.

This comes from the New York Times of Dec 2/ 1982, in an article by James Gleitch called 'Galaxies moving at High Speeds.'

These 'ever-lengthening streams' as described by Dr. Dressler can be found, I am claiming, in any 'free' vortex of water in a bowl.

If you study the surface of this 'free' vortex, you can easily see it is rippled. Each ripple represents a seperate stream - for it is these 'streams' of which the vortex is made.

These streams, which start out slowly from the Vortex Edge, are ever- lengthening streams as, I believe, described by Dr Dressler.

Of course, these streams Speed Up as they go, Cooling and Losing Pressure (tending to expand) all the while, and doing all this while Clumping Up at the same Time.

It is the 'Transfer of Material' between these parralel streams that explains 'How' Clumping Up happens.

Clumping Up seems to happen 'exponentially' towards the Center of the Vortex.

I feel that any model of the Universe should clearly demonstrate this 'Pronounced Streaming Effect'.


Notice how cleverly I avoided the plural (plurices?).

Regards, John M. So glad to see you have a sense of humour with it.

[astrocat]

astrocat
Why don't you just present your model, instead of keeping us in the dark and throwing out our ideas about what you want to know.

I have to go carefully, Tusenfem. This is avery 'heavy' topic. I hope you can see that.


I can see a vortex in my bathtub when I empty it, I can imagine a vortex near a magnetized accreting object etc. etc.

Yes, vortices are so common, on Earth. Every time you breathe in, two vortices form at you nostrils.


This is not really two different kinds of vortices. If you keep on stirring the vortex will remain in your coffee mug. That's your 'Forced' Vortex. According to Wiki...


If you turn off the motor of your vacuum cleaner, the vortex will "peter out". This is your 'Free Vortex' - the kind I'm more interested in.


So there is no real difference, it just depends on the driver and it has nothing to do with gas and water. If the driver is turned off the vortex will dissipate, if the driver is kept turned on the vortex will remain.

That's an interesting way to put it. I assume, in my free vortex, the 'driver' is 'on' all the Time.

[iantresman]

I'm presently investigating the 'likelyhood/ impossibility' of finding a vortex in Space. I need help here. What is the mainstream view?

Winston H. Bostick (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Winston_H._Bostick) did quite a bit on vortex phenomena in space, (see the aforementioned link, and search the page for "vort"), where I think they are associated with Birkeland currents (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current) and charged particle beams (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Particle_beam), which are arguably quite prevalent throughout the Universe.

See also the work by A. B. Kukushkin, A. B. and V.A Rantsev-Kartinov, on what they call "Universal Skeletal Structures (http://uni-skeletons.narod.ru/English-main.htm)" where they associate tornados and waterspouts with cosmic phenomena (eg. see here (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005physics..12245K))

[astrocat]

Winston H. Bostick (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Winston_H._Bostick) did quite a bit on vortex phenomena in space, (see the aforementioned link, and search the page for "vort"), where I think they are associated with Birkeland currents (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current) and charged particle beams (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Particle_beam), which are arguably quite prevalent throughout the Universe.

See also the work by A. B. Kukushkin, A. B. and V.A Rantsev-Kartinov, on what they call "Universal Skeletal Structures (http://uni-skeletons.narod.ru/English-main.htm)" where they associate tornados and waterspouts with cosmic phenomena (eg. see here (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005physics..12245K)) Thanks 'iantresman', I will certainly check these out and get back. Any information helps.

[astrocat]

Winston H. Bostick (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Winston_H._Bostick) did quite a bit on vortex phenomena in space, (see the aforementioned link, and search the page for "vort"), where I think they are associated with Birkeland currents (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current) and charged particle beams (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Particle_beam), which are arguably quite prevalent throughout the Universe. Yes, I see where Birkeland currents can cause Galaxy formation... In a universe that consists of 99% Plasama. I don't see much mention of 'vortices' or 'Clumping Up', tho' found the Plasma Research fascinating.


See also the work by A. B. Kukushkin, A. B. and V.A Rantsev-Kartinov, on what they call "Universal Skeletal Structures (http://uni-skeletons.narod.ru/English-main.htm)" where they associate tornados and waterspouts with cosmic phenomena (eg. see here (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005physics..12245K)) Yes, again, it's about Plasma Research. I guess we do live in a 'Plasma Universe'

Apparently, electro-magnetic attraction is much stronger than Gravity in the right circumstances. But again, I don't see them associating Vortices with Clumping Up.

Thanks again for this input. How else am I going to find answers to my questions without input from knowledgeable people like you? You certainly opened my eyes to 'pinches' and other electromagnetic phenomenon.

[John Mendenhall]

Tons of interesting stuff. Maybe you should broaden your question to spirals? And the large scale streaming is a dandy.

[iantresman]

Apparently, electro-magnetic attraction is much stronger than Gravity in the right circumstances. But again, I don't see them associating Vortices with Clumping Up.

Marklund convection (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Marklund_convection) provides "an efficient means to accumulate [clump] matter within a plasma", such as a Birkeland current filament. And parallel Birkeland currents (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current) "clump" together due to plasma pinching (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch).

Birkeland currents (force-free magnetic vortex filaments,[ref (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..690L)]) are vortices, which tend to be invisible in space, but become visible in the atmosphere of the Earth (causing auroral curls, due to the diocotron plasma instability,[ref (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985PhRvL..54.1167P)][full text (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Peratt.Snell.pdf)]).

[tusenfem]

I have to go carefully, Tusenfem. This is avery 'heavy' topic. I hope you can see that.


If you mean that the universe is heavy I agree, I do not see why you say you have to be careful. Up to this point you have left us in the dark, you do not say what you want, what you are looking for. People get cryptic answers as this one. I think it is all just baloney



That's your 'Forced' Vortex. According to Wiki...
This is your 'Free Vortex' - the kind I'm more interested in.


So you are interested in "free vortices', interested in vortices that dissipate. Basically there is no difference between the two types, they have the same equations that govern them, only at one the driver has been put to zero. Note, that you just defined a vortex that "peters out" or dissipates, is a free vortex but the you go on with:



That's an interesting way to put it. I assume, in my free vortex, the 'driver' is 'on' all the Time.

So, that cannot be. If the driver is on all the time by your definition you have a forced vortex.

And another problem too. You also defined the vortex in the bathtub as a free vortex, but there is a driver there and it is called gravity, which pulls the water into the bathtub drain, and by that driving already existing motion of the water like a ice skater making a pirouette and closing his arms to go faster and any inhomogeneities in the bath tub will cause friction and will get the water start to vortex (mmm interesting verb to vortex). So, there is only one vortex and it has its driver on or off. If on it will remain, if off it will dissipate and disappear. Nothing special.

So, now, Astrocat what exactly are you trying to tell us here? What is the model you are working on, if you want our help you need to tell us.

[StefanR]

Already Leonardo Da Vinci had observed at liquids that there exist two dual basic types of plane vortices : "Among the vortices one is slower at the centre than at the sides , another is faster at the center than at the sides."
A vortex of the first type, also called "vortex with rigid-body rotation",is formed for instance by a liquid in a centrifuge that due to its inertia of mass is pressed to the edge because there the largest velocity exists. In an analogous way the electromagnetic vortex in electrically conductive material shows the well known "skin effect".
To explain the other vortex Newton describes the experiment where a rod is dipped into a liquid as viscous as possible and then is turned. In this potential vortex the velocity of the particle increases the closer to the rod it is.
The duality of both vortex phenomena becomes obvious when is made clear that in the experiment with the centrifuge the more liquid presses to the edge the less viscous the medium is. And that on the other hand the potential vortex forms the stronger the more viscous the medium is. Or viscosity of the liquid decides wether a vortex with rigid-body rotation or a potential vortex is formed.

When in a third experiment, the centrifuge filled with water is placed into a tough medium and let the centrifuge rotate, then inside the centrifuge a vortex with rigid-body rotation forms and outside the centrifuge a potential vortex forms.
One vortex always causes the other with the opposite properties and so the existence of one causes that of the other. So in the first case, that of the vortex with rigid-body rotation, outside the centrifuge potential vortices will form in the surrounding air, whereas in the second case, that of the potential vortices , the turning rod itself can be interpreted as a special of a vortex with rigid-body rotation.
Hence in all conceivable experiment the condition always is fulfilled that in the centre of the vortex the same state of "peace", that we can fix as "zero", prevails as in infinity.
When we take the tornado as an example, thus a whirlwind. In the eye of the storm there's no wind at all. But when I go away from this spot, then I'm blown to the outside. I can really feel the vortex with rigid-body rotation in the inside. If, however, I am standing on the outside, then the potential vortex tries to pull me into the vortex. This potential vortex is responsible for the structure and in the end also for the size of the tornado.
At the radius of the vortex, the place with the largets speed of the wind, an equilibrium prevails. The vortex with rigid-body rotation and the potential vortex at this point are equally powerful. Their power again is determined by the viscosity, which thereby fixes the radius of the vortex.
Therefore meteorologists, want to know wether a tornado forms over land or over water. Over the ocean for instance it sucks itself full of water. In that way the potential vortex icreases in power, the radius of the gets smaller and the energy density increases.

Maybe the knowledge from hydrodynamics can be transferred to the area of electromagnetism , then the role of viscosity is taken over by the electric conductivity. The well-known current eddy occurs in the conductor, whereas its counterpart, the potential vortex, forms in the bad-conducting medium, with preferenced in the dielectric.

[astrocat]

Marklund convection (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Marklund_convection) provides "an efficient means to accumulate [clump] matter within a plasma", such as a Birkeland current filament. And parallel Birkeland currents (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current) "clump" together due to plasma pinching (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch). My reading is that Marklund Convection leads to a separation of elements. I don't read anything about vortices or Clumping Up. I think we are a long way apart on this.


Birkeland currents (force-free magnetic vortex filaments,[ref (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..690L)]) are vortices, ... Sorry, I missed that... about vortices.


...which tend to be invisible in space, but become visible in the atmosphere of the Earth (causing auroral curls, due to the diocotron plasma instability,[ref (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985PhRvL..54.1167P)][full text (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Peratt.Snell.pdf)]). If you say so. I can't find this - about plasma vortices.

[jamini]

Astrocat - Do you have an ATM theory to present here or are you just asking questions? If it's the latter, why did you start an ATM topic instead of posting in Q&A?

[astrocat]

Already Leonardo Da Vinci had observed at liquids that there exist two dual basic types of plane vortices : "Among the vortices one is slower at the centre than at the sides , another is faster at the center than at the sides." We are all familiar with the second type - where the center turns more quickly than the edges.

A vortex of the first type, also called "vortex with rigid-body rotation",is formed for instance by a liquid in a centrifuge that due to its inertia of mass is pressed to the edge because there the largest velocity exists. I think I see. You put liquid in a centriguge, then you start the centrifuge. Immediately, the edges will turn, but it will be a while before the center moves.


In an analogous way the electromagnetic vortex in electrically conductive material shows the well known "skin effect". I guess you mean the circular line of force that is generated around a wire carrying a current. Do you call that a vortex?


To explain the other vortex Newton describes the experiment where a rod is dipped into a liquid as viscous as possible and then is turned. In this potential vortex the velocity of the particle increases the closer to the rod it is. Yes, the rod is effectively 'stirring' the medium from the inside. This, in Science, is called a 'forced' vortex.


The duality of both vortex phenomena becomes obvious when is made clear that in the experiment with the centrifuge the more liquid presses to the edge the less viscous the medium is. This 'centifuge generated reverse vortex' is only temporary, you realise. If the experiment is allowed to continue, your reverse vortex will gradually turn into a regular forced vortex.


And that on the other hand the potential vortex forms the stronger the more viscous the medium is. Or viscosity of the liquid decides wether a vortex with rigid-body rotation or a potential vortex is formed. I imagine it will take a low viscosity medium longer to become a forced vortex, thjan a highly viscous medeium.


When in a third experiment, the centrifuge filled with water is placed into a tough medium and let the centrifuge rotate, then inside the centrifuge a vortex with rigid-body rotation forms and outside the centrifuge a potential vortex forms. Not exactly sure what you are saying here. Maybe you could expand on this 'third experiment'.


One vortex always causes the other with the opposite properties and so the existence of one causes that of the other.

I think I see. If you pull the plug on a sinkful of water, you are also creating a vortex in the air above the sink. And it will be the opposite kind of vortex to the 'free vortex' in the sink?


So in the first case, that of the vortex with rigid-body rotation, outside the centrifuge potential vortices will form in the surrounding air, I see, I think.


...whereas in the second case, that of the potential vortices , the turning rod itself can be interpreted as a special of a vortex with rigid-body rotation. I suppose so.


Hence in all conceivable experiment the condition always is fulfilled that in the centre of the vortex the same state of "peace", that we can fix as "zero", prevails as in infinity. In the center is a zone of lowest pressure, highest speed, least cold, and maximum expansion and Clumping Up. If you say this is a zone of 'peace' that you can fix as zero, I can't really see it.


When we take the tornado as an example, thus a whirlwind. In the eye of the storm there's no wind at all. At the center of a tornado is a zone of fierce electrical disturbances, with strong winds - in a vertical direction.

In the center of a sinkful of water going down a drain, because of the extreme low pressure (or maximum expansion) there, some air is sucked up through the center, causing the noisy 'slurping ' sound. This is a vertical movement.


But when I go away from this spot, then I'm blown to the outside. Not sucked back to the center?


I can really feel the vortex with rigid-body rotation in the inside. If, however, I am standing on the outside, then the potential vortex tries to pull me into the vortex. This potential vortex is responsible for the structure and in the end also for the size of the tornado.

Isn't it all part of the same vortex?


At the radius of the vortex, the place with the largets speed of the wind, an equilibrium prevails.
Don't you mean 'center' of the vortex?


The vortex with rigid-body rotation and the potential vortex at this point are equally powerful. Their power again is determined by the viscosity, which thereby fixes the radius of the vortex. Why are you introducing 'radius' at this point? I find it confusing.

Therefore meteorologists, want to know wether a tornado forms over land or over water. Over the ocean for instance it sucks itself full of water. In that way the potential vortex icreases in power, the radius of the gets smaller and the energy density increases. I only know water tends to kill a tornado. As a tornado declines, its radius diminishes.


Maybe the knowledge from hydrodynamics can be transferred to the area of electromagnetism , then the role of viscosity is taken over by the electric conductivity. ...maybe...


The well-known current eddy occurs in the conductor,

Current eddy? The circle of force around a conducting wire?


whereas its counterpart, the potential vortex, forms in the bad-conducting medium, with preferenced in the dielectric. Perhaps you could explain this 'potential vortex'. I'm having difficulty perceiving exactly what you mean by it.

[astrocat]

If you mean that the universe is heavy I agree, I do not see why you say you have to be careful. But I do.


Up to this point you have left us in the dark, you do not say what you want, what you are looking for. People get cryptic answers as this one. I think it is all just baloney I want to know if anybody else has equated a vortex with clumping up.


So you are interested in "free vortices', interested in vortices that dissipate. Interested in what happens when you pull the plug on a sinkful of water.


Basically there is no difference between the two types, they have the same equations that govern them, only at one the driver has been put to zero. Note, that you just defined a vortex that "peters out" or dissipates, is a free vortex As opposed to a 'forced vortex'... But they interest me too.


but the you go on with:
So, that cannot be. If the driver is on all the time by your definition you have a forced vortex. ...whatever...


And another problem too. You also defined the vortex in the bathtub as a free vortex, but there is a driver there and it is called gravity, which pulls the water into the bathtub drain, and by that driving already existing motion of the water like a ice skater making a pirouette and closing his arms to go faster and any inhomogeneities in the bath tub will cause friction and will get the water start to vortex (mmm interesting verb to vortex). interesting verb...


So, there is only one vortex and it has its driver on or off. If on it will remain, if off it will dissipate and disappear. Nothing special. Wiki says there are two types - 'free' (bathtub/plug) Gravity driven - which will run forever if water is constantly added, and 'forced' (solid body rotation).

I might have got them wrong. Hardly the point, I feel.


So, now, Astrocat what exactly are you trying to tell us here? What is the model you are working on, if you want our help you need to tell us. Tell me who first said 'Clumping up is a feature of a vortex.

[astrocat]

Astrocat - Do you have an ATM theory to present here or are you just asking questions? If it's the latter, why did you start an ATM topic instead of posting in Q&A? Clumping up happens on Earth and in Space. It covers everything from star-birth to the actual formation of Black Holes. Maybe vortices too! i'm just having a little bit of difficulty finding them in Space. I think the importance of this thread cannot be denied. I'm certainly not here to ask questions, Jamini. I think you know that...

[jamini]

... I'm certainly not here to ask questions, Jamini. I think you know that...

Then for the umpteenth time:

What is your ATM theory?

What evidence do you have to support it (besides what you “think” or what “makes sense to you”, etc.). I mean real evidence like math, physics, reference material, etc. as has been requested of you on many, many occasions.

[Jerry]

The effects you are observing have as much to do with the chemical nature and density of the materials involved as the physics of a rotating medium. Cream is lighter than water, so when they are centrafuged, the more massive water molecules contain more kinetic energy, shearing weak hydrogen bonds with the less-dense cream that is forced towards the center. The clumping is a function of less kinetic energy near the middle - there is less shear pressure exerted on the hydrogen bonds and some of the water remains sandwiched between globs of cream.

If you centrafuge water with a chemical that is 'oily', but heavier than water, (such as a fluorocarbon) the oily substance ends up on the outside and there is little if any clumping; although the degree of separation is always related to the functionality of chemicals involved in this physical separation process.

[antoniseb]

the more massive water molecules contain more kinetic energy, shearing weak hydrogen bonds with the less-dense cream that is forced towards the center.
Jerry, thanks for stepping in and defending the mainstream view here. I know you meant the right thing here, but for the sake of other readers, let me point out that water molecules are denser than those of oils, but the oil molecules are more spacious and have more total mass. The rest of Jerry's statement is a nice clear explanation.

[John Mendenhall]

You theorize, then, that clumping of matter occurs if there is a vortex? If so, then I think there is a chicken and egg question here. Due to angular momentum considerations, any time matter 'clumps', for example, for a new star, then there will be rotation, and a vortex. Indeed, the angular momentum won't go away. It's a problem in black hole theories, because any real black hole rotates, and the original black hole derivations were for non-rotating massive objects, for simplicity. However (please don't get over excited, EU people), I can visualise matter clumping secondly in an electromagnetic vortex.

[astrocat]

The effects you are observing have as much to do with the chemical nature and density of the materials involved as the physics of a rotating medium. Cream is lighter than water, so when they are centrafuged, the more massive water molecules contain more kinetic energy, shearing weak hydrogen bonds with the less-dense cream that is forced towards the center. The clumping is a function of less kinetic energy near the middle - there is less shear pressure exerted on the hydrogen bonds and some of the water remains sandwiched between globs of cream.

This has something to do with surface-tension and viscosity, no?
What about heavier elements? If you introduce say, a tablespoonful of sand in a bucket and stir, the sand will clump up on the bottom, in the center.


If you centrafuge water with a chemical that is 'oily', but heavier than water, (such as a fluorocarbon) the oily substance ends up on the outside... I guess it sticks to the edges, due to the chemical nature of the oil. I don't know if oil is such a good example...


... and there is little if any clumping; although the degree of separation is always related to the functionality of chemicals involved in this physical separation process. Yes, the functionality of the chemicals involved... Not really what I was after.

[astrocat]

You theorize, then, that clumping of matter occurs if there is a vortex? If so, then I think there is a chicken and egg question here. Due to angular momentum considerations, any time matter 'clumps', for example, for a new star, then there will be rotation, and a vortex.

I theorise, that if there is a vortex, and you introduce matter - then the matter will tend to clump up.

If the vortex is on Earth, where gravity is 'down', then depending on the density of the medium, the introduced matter wil either float or sink - but it will clump up in the center, either on top, or on the bottom.

Any time matter clumps? That's trickier. If I saw matter clumping up - yes, I would look for the cause - and my first consideration would be that there may be a vorterx at work.


Indeed, the angular momentum won't go away. It's a problem in black hole theories, because any real black hole rotates, and the original black hole derivations were for non-rotating massive objects, for simplicity. However (please don't get over excited, EU people),

I know Black Holes rotate, but because of gravitational time dilation, they would appear to us to be rotating only slowly.


I can visualise matter clumping secondly in an electromagnetic vortex.

An electro magnetic vortex? Got any examples?

[astrocat]

Tons of interesting stuff. Maybe you should broaden your question to spirals? And the large scale streaming is a dandy. Yes, John - I like spirals too. I believe this is the most common shape, in Space.

Something else - some of these Seven Samurai compared 'our' stream to a train, and 'wondered where the engine was...'

I have my own theory on that 'engine'.

[John Mendenhall]

An electro magnetic vortex? Got any examples?

Sunspots, solar prominences, maybe auroras, and maybe Jupiter-Io flux tube.

Gas centrifuges?

Definetly backward-wave oscillators, although the electrons go in first.

[Hornblower]

So far this still looks like a Q&A session. Meanwhile the 30-day clock is ticking. The sooner the OP poster quits going round and round the mulberry bush and presents an alternative theory of whatever is on his mind, the more time we will have to discuss it.

[StefanR]

I'm sorry astrocat , I think I was too presumptious. I think I don't understand your vortex.


I theorise, that if there is a vortex, and you introduce matter - then the matter will tend to clump up.

On what scales of size does your vortex function? Do you say clumping up is a feature
of a vortex on all scales or is your vortex clumping feature size dependent?
Is your vortex a field or a substance ? And what causes that field or substance to behave like vortex?
And is your vortex a temporal phenomenon or do you propose a static model?
Can al kinds of matter be used to add to the vortex or does it matter what kind of matter is used?

[tusenfem]

But I do.
I want to know if anybody else has equated a vortex with clumping up.


sure you do, we will probably hear about it when Easter and Pentecost fall on the same day.
In the mean while, going to ADS It took me about 2 minutes to get the following list (http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&db_key=PRE&qform=PHY&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&aut_logic=OR&author=&ned_query=YES&sim_query=YES&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=AND&text=vortex+clumping+matter&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) searching on the abstract keywords vortex clumping matter, so I guess the answer to your question is yes.



1. Interested in what happens when you pull the plug on a sinkful of water.
2. As opposed to a 'forced vortex'... But they interest me too.
3. ...whatever...
4. interesting verb...


1. well first of all the water flows out I would think
2. + 3. I just pointed out that at least in the description you were contradicting yourself, when you were talking about free and forced vortices.
4. If that is all you have to say.



Wiki says there are two types - 'free' (bathtub/plug) Gravity driven - which will run forever if water is constantly added, and 'forced' (solid body rotation).
I might have got them wrong. Hardly the point, I feel.

Hardly the point? If that is how you science, no wonder that you are not presenting anything useful here.
I just read the Wiki, and now understand better what the free and forced vortices are, in their definitions. The free (irrotational) ones have varying angular velocity over the whole vortex, whereas the forced (rotational) vortex has the same angular velocity over the vortex. I guess, this not being clear, made at least my confusion about drivers etc.



Tell me who first said 'Clumping up is a feature of a vortex.


Probably some Greek guy in antiquity.

[astrocat]

Then for the umpteenth time:

What is your ATM theory?

What evidence do you have to support it (besides what you “think” or what “makes sense to you”, etc.). I mean real evidence like math, physics, reference material, etc. as has been requested of you on many, many occasions. Okay, here's the physics of a vortex, the way I see it.

A 'Drop' of water, existing on the edge of a 'free' vortex (water leaving a bath-tub) will become drawn towards the plug-hole, due to gravity - as postulated by Newton, or, if you prefer, a distortion of Space/Time, as postulated by Einstein. Both ways, this 'Drop' is going to Speed Up as it goes.

It was Bernoulli who discovered that if you Speed Up a Drop of water, it will Lose Pressure, which is the same, according to Boyle's Law, as Gaining Volume, or Expansion. This is not easy to show as a Drop of water barely expands, so we will have to say the Drop of water will only show a tendency to expand. The 'Joule Thomson Effect' says that any expanding gas will undergo a loss of temperature, and of course, when you expand just about anything, it will tend to Cool Down.

I say, and I think I'm the only one who has noticed, because we are talking about a vortex here, that Clumping Up will also increase - more so as this water approaches the center of the Vortex.

So we have this 'Drop' Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Losing Pressure and Expanding (things that are shared, actually, by any Gravitating Object) - and Clumping Up too, a feature of a Vortex.

This is an ATM Thread because I am wondering if there is any place in the Cosmos sharing these exact effects? I think it would be worthwhile to investigate any such places. I, myself, know of only one. I am trying to find others.

There must be vortices in Space. I think, in the name of Science, we should try to identify them.

[astrocat]

Sunspots, solar prominences, maybe auroras, and maybe Jupiter-Io flux tube.

Gas centrifuges?

Definetly backward-wave oscillators, although the electrons go in first. Glad to know they exist. I see there are vortices on Jupiter.

[astrocat]

sure you do, we will probably hear about it when Easter and Pentecost fall on the same day. That sounds real scientific.


In the mean while, going to ADS It took me about 2 minutes to get the following list (http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&db_key=PRE&qform=PHY&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&aut_logic=OR&author=&ned_query=YES&sim_query=YES&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=AND&text=vortex+clumping+matter&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) searching on the abstract keywords vortex clumping matter, so I guess the answer to your question is yes. Funny, because when I read these, I couldn't find it. Plenty of talk about vortices, matter and clumps, but no equating that I could find. Maybe you could be more specific.


1. well first of all the water flows out I would think What?No vortex?


2. + 3. I just pointed out that at least in the description you were contradicting yourself, when you were talking about free and forced vortices. I know the difference.


4. If that is all you have to say.
Hardly the point? If that is how you science, no wonder that you are not presenting anything useful here. Not useful? Explaining Star-Birth etc?


I just read the Wiki, and now understand better what the free and forced vortices are, in their definitions. The free (irrotational) ones have varying angular velocity over the whole vortex, whereas the forced (rotational) vortex has the same angular velocity over the vortex. I guess, this not being clear, made at least my confusion about drivers etc. Same place I go. They make it all clear there.


Probably some Greek guy in antiquity.
Oh yeah? What was his name?

[astrocat]

I'm sorry astrocat , I think I was too presumptious. I think I don't understand your vortex.

On what scales of size does your vortex function? Do you say clumping up is a feature
of a vortex on all scales or is your vortex clumping feature size dependent? Any size above sub-atomic.

Is your vortex a field or a substance ? And what causes that field or substance to behave like vortex? My vortex is any 'free' vortex. The 'motive force' brings about the vortex.


And is your vortex a temporal phenomenon or do you propose a static model? I'm concerned with both types.


Can al kinds of matter be used to add to the vortex or does it matter what kind of matter is used? So long as it is matter that is more or less dense than the medium and does not have any 'surface tension' or 'viscosity' issues, and is preferably easily visible. I prefer to give examples using grains of minerals - salt, sand, sugar, detritus etc. in water and air. These close at hand examples seem to me to be the most suitable 'demonstration' type media.

[loglo]

snip...Probably some Greek guy in antiquity.

They were big on bathtubs, weren't they? :whistle:

[astrocat]

They were big on bathtubs, weren't they? :whistle:Bathtubs are OK, but I prefer 'a sinkful of water going down a drain,' or 'a whirlwind' like you see in the corner of a building - which picks up the detritus and forms it into a neat clump in the center.

If you take a moment to analyse what is actually happening inside this mini-twister...

...Let's say we were sitting on a grain of dust, having just recently come under the influence of this miniature cyclone. We would find ourselves Speeding Up, Losing Temperature (losing potential energy?) in an Expanding situation as the Pressure Dropped, Clumping Up as well, and all this at a rate that was increasing exponentially, the closer we got to the center.

What could be clearer? I sincerely believe a twelve year old could see that.

This is the physics of a vortex. This doesn't just happen on Earth, it also happens on Jupiter.

[Hornblower]

What could be clearer? I sincerely believe a twelve year old could see that.


It might be a bit clearer during the winter, when the mulberry bush has no leaves to obstruct our vision.

This still looks like an ongoing Q&A session about vortex dynamics, with no presentation of an alternative astronomy/space science idea which might solve some lingering mysteries while remaining in good agreement with mainstream theories on those items which are not mysteries.

23 days and counting. This too shall pass.

[jamini]

This is an ATM Thread because I am wondering if there is any place in the Cosmos sharing these exact effects? I think it would be worthwhile to investigate any such places. I, myself, know of only one. I am trying to find others.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there are many vortices in space, from the core of the Earth to hurricanes to galaxies and beyond.

You have not presented any material whatsoever that could be considered an ATM theory. All you have done is ask a lot of questions, which is what the Q&A forum is for.

If you do have opinions that differ with those of mainstream views then please present them, along with their corresponding physics, math and reference data. If not then you should ask for the topic to be closed and post your questions in the appropriate forum.


There must be vortices in Space. I think, in the name of Science, we should try to identify them.
There are many and we are/have been identifying them. What material have you already read in your field of interest, pertaining to vortex behavior?

[tusenfem]

If you take a moment to analyse what is actually happening inside this mini-twister...

...Let's say we were sitting on a grain of dust, having just recently come under the influence of this miniature cyclone. We would find ourselves Speeding Up, Losing Temperature (losing potential energy?) in an Expanding situation as the Pressure Dropped, Clumping Up as well, and all this at a rate that was increasing exponentially, the closer we got to the center.


I would make some calculations if I were you, to see what really happens.
E.g. from Shu "The physics of Astrophyscis II: Gas dynamics" page 73 gives the equation for water out of a faucet:
0.5 u2 + Phi + (P/rho) = constant
where u is the flow velocity and Phi the gravitational potential of the Earth.

Or do you want a "de Lavalle nozzle"?

The best for you may be the "bondi problem" (page 77) of spherical accretion by a point mass M.

And interesting that you did not find anything in my literature list. When I look through the list, there is a nice abstract about Planet embryos in vortex wombs, with the following abstract:



One of the enduring puzzles in the formation of planetary systems is how millimeter-sized dust grains agglomerate to become kilometer-sized, self gravitating planetesimals, the ``building blocks'' of planets. One theory is that the dust grains settle into the mid-plane of the protoplanetary disk (thin, cool disk of gas and dust in orbit around a newly forming protostar) until they reach a critical density that triggers a gravitational instability to clumping. However, turbulence within the disk is likely to stir up the dust grains and prevent them from reaching this critical density. A competing theory is that dust grains grow by pair-wise collisions, forming fractal structures. It is unclear, however, how robust such structures would be to successive collisions. A new and exciting theory is that vortices in a protoplanetary disk may capture dust grains at their centers, ``seeding'' the formation of planetesimals. We are investigating the dynamics of 3D vortices in protoplanetary disks with a parallel spectral code on the Blue Horizon supercomputer. Some of the lingering questions we address are: What is the structure of 3D vortices in a protoplanetary disk? Are they columns that extend vertically through the disk, through many scale heights of pressure and density? Or are they more ``pancake-like'' and confined to the mid-plane? Are the vortices stable to small perturbations, such as vertical shear? Are 3D vortices robust and long-lived coherent structures? Do small vortices merge to form larger vortices the way vortices on Jupiter do?

[publiusr]

I want to hijack this thread because I also am thinking about Vortex generation--but not in cosmology.

If small mini twister form above smokers, could vortex generation or clumping of DNA be possible--biology thru forced mechanical means--due to updrafts from organics coming from smokers...

[astrocat]

It might be a bit clearer during the winter, when the mulberry bush has no leaves to obstruct our vision.Real scientific.


This still looks like an ongoing Q&A session about vortex dynamics, with no presentation of an alternative astronomy/space science idea which might solve some lingering mysteries while remaining in good agreement with mainstream theories on those items which are not mysteries.

23 days and counting. This too shall pass.

The title of my thread is, to the best of my knowledge, a presentation of a 'brand new' astronomy/space science idea, which solves the lingering mystery of 'Where does Clumping Up happen?' and I'm remaining in good agreement with the forces of Gravity and all the other things that the Cosmos is known to be doing, according to mainstream theories, things like Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure, which are well known...

[astrocat]

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there are many vortices in space, from the core of the Earth to hurricanes to galaxies and beyond.Yes, I read in Wiki, on the subject 'Vortex' about half way down, under 'Observations - Instances'.

The last three entries are astronomical - they suggest as 'instances' of a Vortex... Solar Spots, Galaxies, and Black Holes' Accretion Discs.


You have not presented any material whatsoever that could be considered an ATM theory. All you have done is ask a lot of questions, which is what the Q&A forum is for. This is an important finding, about Vortices being responsible for some/all of the Clumping Up that has gone on since NASA's COBE's findings of the Early Universe.


If you do have opinions that differ with those of mainstream views then please present them, along with their corresponding physics, math and reference data. If not then you should ask for the topic to be closed and post your questions in the appropriate forum. Does Mainstream agree that Clumping Up is a feature of a Vortex? I have never heard that statement before. Have you, Jamini? If so,I think you should tell us right away.



There are many and we are/have been identifying them. What material have you already read in your field of interest, pertaining to vortex behavior? Yes, and in Wiki, it says, under Instances (of a Vortex) 'Barred or Spiral Galaxies. Our Milky Way is considered to be one.'

Just as I have always suspected! The Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) is called that because it probably is one - a Whirlpool.

What material...? Not much - just what is written in Wiki. But I have observed different Vortices, and examined and noted their behaviour Scientifically, perhaps more closely than others have done in the past.

You see, in these Vortices I have also found this 'Speeding Up Expansion' so common in the Universe. It's a paradox, of course, but one well worth pursuing, I feel.

[astrocat]

I would make some calculations if I were you, to see what really happens.
E.g. from Shu "The physics of Astrophyscis II: Gas dynamics" page 73 gives the equation for water out of a faucet:
0.5 u2 + Phi + (P/rho) = constant
where u is the flow velocity and Phi the gravitational potential of the Earth.

Or do you want a "de Lavalle nozzle"? This isn't about water coming out of a faucet, and neither Google or Wiki know what a 'de Lavalle nozzle' is.


The best for you may be the "bondi problem" (page 77) of spherical accretion by a point mass M. This is more like it.


And interesting that you did not find anything in my literature list. When I look through the list, there is a nice abstract about Planet embryos in vortex wombs, with the following abstract:

[quote = Barranco, Joseph A.; Marcus, Philip S.]
One of the enduring puzzles in the formation of planetary systems is how millimeter-sized dust grains agglomerate to become kilometer-sized, self gravitating planetesimals, the ``building blocks'' of planets. One theory is that the dust grains settle into the mid-plane of the protoplanetary disk (thin, cool disk of gas and dust in orbit around a newly forming protostar) until they reach a critical density that triggers a gravitational instability to clumping. However, turbulence within the disk is likely to stir up the dust grains and prevent them from reaching this critical density. A competing theory is that dust grains grow by pair-wise collisions, forming fractal structures. It is unclear, however, how robust such structures would be to successive collisions. Not too likely, I think.
A new and exciting theory... Get this...
is that vortices in a protoplanetary disk may capture dust grains at their centers, ``seeding'' the formation of planetesimals....may capture... They don't sound too sure.


We are investigating the dynamics of 3D vortices in protoplanetary disks with a parallel spectral code on the Blue Horizon supercomputer. Some of the lingering questions we address are: What is the structure of 3D vortices in a protoplanetary disk? Are they columns that extend vertically through the disk, through many scale heights of pressure and density? Or are they more ``pancake-like'' and confined to the mid-plane? Pancake-like and confined to the mid-plane.


Are the vortices stable to small perturbations, such as vertical shear? Are 3D vortices robust and long-lived coherent structures? Do small vortices merge to form larger vortices the way vortices on Jupiter do?


I'm glad people are beginning to study Vortices. The subject has for too long been a 'desert' of Scientific Thinking.

[tusenfem]

This isn't about water coming out of a faucet, and neither Google or Wiki know what a 'de Lavalle nozzle' is.

This is more like it.
Not too likely, I think. Get this... ...may capture... They don't sound too sure.

Pancake-like and confined to the mid-plane.

I'm glad people are beginning to study Vortices. The subject has for too long been a 'desert' of Scientific Thinking.

Okay my bad it is a deLaval nozzle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle), and it is something so basic in gas dynamics that you will have to know about it if you want to talk about Bernouilli etc.

You could have found that abstract yourself. You say not too likely, but they have been published in a real refereed journal, whereas you have not even presented something real here on the board, except for word salat.

The fact that they write "may capture" is because it is an abstract. Read the whole paper and you might learn something. It does not necessarily something in doubt when scientists write "may capture".

Have you any proof that vortices are only recently been studied? I hardly doubt that. A quick search on ADS show that already in 1975 these papers were pubished (http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&db_key=PRE&qform=PHY&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&aut_logic=OR&author=&ned_query=YES&sim_query=YES&start_mon=1&start_year=1970&end_mon=12&end_year=1975&ttl_logic=OR&title=vortex&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) with the word "vortex' in the title.

[John Mendenhall]

A fun thread. Keep going! As the thread swirls around and around . . .

[astrocat]

Okay my bad it is a deLaval nozzle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle), Well, that's better. Of course I'm familiar with the de Laval nopzzle, as used on the V2 Rocket.
...and it is something so basic in gas dynamics that you will have to know about it if you want to talk about Bernouilli etc. Yes, isn't it.


You could have found that abstract yourself. Yes, but you found it, and I have to thank you.
You say not too likely, but they have been published in a real refereed journal, whereas you have not even presented something real here on the board, except for word salat. What was the date on it? You could help me greatly here, as I have been saying this (about the Vortex and Clumping Up) for years.


The fact that they write "may capture" is because it is an abstract. Read the whole paper and you might learn something. It does not necessarily something in doubt when scientists write "may capture". The idea in the paper is offered as one of three possible scenarios. However, I was pleased to see that this idea, the subject of this thread, is referred to as 'new and exciting, even if the writers failed to grasp the true import of this idea.


Have you any proof that vortices are only recently been studied? I hardly doubt that. A quick search on ADS show that already in 1975 these papers were pubished (http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&db_key=PRE&qform=PHY&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&aut_logic=OR&author=&ned_query=YES&sim_query=YES&start_mon=1&start_year=1970&end_mon=12&end_year=1975&ttl_logic=OR&title=vortex&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) with the word "vortex' in the title. Yes, I see much has been written. But apart from this, you must be able to see the 'continuing drop in pressure' as the center of the vortex is approached?

That 'continuing drop in pressure,' in Physics, is another way of saying 'continuing rise in Volume', according to Boyle's Law.

That 'continuous rise in Volume' is the same as saying 'continuous increasing Expansion.'

This 'continuing increasing expansion' only happens in a Vortex. This is exactly the ' contining increasing Expansion' that Hubble noticed.

[astrocat]

A fun thread. Keep going! As the thread swirls around and around . . . I hope they keep it going, too, John. I find it absolutely fascinating.

[astrocat]

I want to hijack this thread because I also am thinking about Vortex generation--but not in cosmology.

If small mini twister form above smokers, could vortex generation or clumping of DNA be possible--biology thru forced mechanical means--due to updrafts from organics coming from smokers... How dare you hijack my thread, Publius R, and this twister over smokers... forced biology! How interesting. With DNA involved too... Where will it end???

[tusenfem]

Well, that's better. Of course I'm familiar with the de Laval nopzzle, as used on the V2 Rocket. Yes, isn't it.


So, just a little typo of mine, and suddenly you do not recognize it?



Yes, but you found it, and I have to thank you. What was the date on it? You could help me greatly here, as I have been saying this (about the Vortex and Clumping Up) for years.


Go to the ADS list I gave you and you can see for yourself, I think it was 2004 but I might be mistaken. "Enlightment is just a click away, astrocat".



The idea in the paper is offered as one of three possible scenarios. However, I was pleased to see that this idea, the subject of this thread, is referred to as 'new and exciting, even if the writers failed to grasp the true import of this idea.

Yes, I see much has been written. But apart from this, you must be able to see the 'continuing drop in pressure' as the center of the vortex is approached?


Maybe you put too much grasp on it? You have not presented anything yet, so .....



That 'continuing drop in pressure,' in Physics, is another way of saying 'continuing rise in Volume', according to Boyle's Law.

That 'continuous rise in Volume' is the same as saying 'continuous increasing Expansion.'


Would that be true? Ehhhh, NO. You are just picking out a small part of the gas law that may fit your ideas. Simplified, the gas law tells us:

P V = N R T

pressure times volume equals density times gasconstant times temperature

So a drop in pressure at constant volume and density can be obtained by lowering the temperature.

Methinks you are not so versed in gas law.



This 'continuing increasing expansion' only happens in a Vortex. This is exactly the ' contining increasing Expansion' that Hubble noticed.

MMM would that be the expansion of the universe?

[astrocat]

So, just a little typo of mine, and suddenly you do not recognize it? As I say, neither does Google or Wiki. Excuse me.


Go to the ADS list I gave you and you can see for yourself, I think it was 2004... Phew, that;s a relief. No doubt they got it from me. I was explaining this in 2003.


...saying the same thing but I might be mistaken. "Enlightment is just a click away, astrocat".

I would love to get you in my flock, tusenfem.


Maybe you put too much grasp on it? You have not presented anything yet, so .....

Would that be true? Ehhhh, NO. You are just picking out a small part of the gas law that may fit your ideas. Simplified, the gas law tells us:

P V = N R T

pressure times volume equals density times gasconstant times temperature

So a drop in pressure at constant volume and density can be obtained by lowering the temperature. Yes, but I meant without doing anything. You see, my Metric respects Lex Parsimoniae. All my Science is about that. I wonder if you are aware of this Law?


Methinks you are not so versed in gas law. I only know that if you drop the Pressure exponentially - something that happens within any falling body, any vortex and some weather systems, you will see a Volume increase exponentially, as I have been trying to make you see. I don't think it's very complicated at all.

Here's the hard part... If the Volume is increasing exponentially, then there will also be Expansion, at a rate that is exponential.


MMM would that be the expansion of the universe?
You can say it, I can't.

[jamini]

You can say it, I can't.
So this whole topic is just a veiled reintroduction of your previously posted ATM claims? Now I understand why after over 70 posts, no theory has been presented.

[Hornblower]

That 'continuing drop in pressure,' in Physics, is another way of saying 'continuing rise in Volume', according to Boyle's Law.

That 'continuous rise in Volume' is the same as saying 'continuous increasing Expansion.'

This 'continuing increasing expansion' only happens in a Vortex. This is exactly the ' contining increasing Expansion' that Hubble noticed.
As nearly as I can tell you are modeling the observable, expanding Universe as being immersed in something resembling the eye of a super-cosmic-sized hurricane. My questions are as follows:

1. Can you show us specifically how your model might solve some lingering mysteries while remaining in good agreement with mainstream theory on things which are not so mysterious?

2. Why did you wait so long to present it? Ten days have passed and this thread will shut down after another 20 days. That gives us less time to debate it.

[jamini]

Astrocat has presented no models, no physics, no math, no supportive reference material to substantiate the same basic claim he has made in several different topics now:

From: Where are the Pioneer Satellites?
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=60359

From COBE's Original Cloud, without adding anything, Clumps have happened, more and moreso, over a great length of time, until Black Holes formed, more towards the Cloud's Center. The Cosmos is 'Clumping Up!


From: The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=58361

As for the shape of the Cosmos, because it's so obviously a Whirlpool, or Vortex, I'd say it was just like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos also has an Axis and requisite Black Hole at its center.

And now the exact same thing here in this topic.

[Nereid]

As astrocat is currently unable to participate (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1023562#post1023562) in this thread, it is closed.

Upon his/her return, it will be re-opened.