Home, Cycles, AstrophysicsMore science, Astronomy, PhysicsMore science 2 Chemistry, Physics, AstronomyHigher Advanced Knowledge of OahspeOptical Network Communications TechnologyWeather, Climate, Dark Matter, Airborne PathogensExtrasolar planets, CEVORKUM, Light speedGeology - Pole-shift - Radiometric datingSolar-Stellar Life Cycle - End of Earth - DeathBiology, Primary Vortex, Life, Computing, QuantumPhysics - Light - SoundPhysics - Magnetism - GravityThe Creator - The Father- and ManHuman origins - Pygmies - I'hinsHominidae - animal-manEarly Man - Races of Man - AnthropologyDinosaurs, Man, fossils, early EarthReligious History, Chinvat Bridge, Archeology, RaceConfucius, Po, China, Jaffeth & CaucasiansThe Great Pyramid of Ancient EgyptHell, Knots, Flash devices, Riot controlBiblical flood and the sinking of PanLooeamong, Constantine, and The Roman EmpireThe Bible, Jesus, Joshu and the EssenesColumbus, Catholics, Conquistadors, Protestants, CrusadesQuakers and inner lightThomas PaineUS HistoryKosmon cycle, people, ancestry & SHALAMSubatomic particles - String Theory - Quantum - GUTMatter - Anti-Matter, Galaxies and CosmologyWalter Russell Cosmogony and EinsteinAerospace engineering, space-ships, space travelSpace clouds, Earth travel, ORACHNEBUAHGALAHTables of prophecy and historyThe BeastORACHNEBUAHGALAH CHARTS & Day Night CyclesAngels and universe structurePower of Attraction - Visualization - Spiritual giftsSpiritual message - UFOs - EthereansCosmic Consciousness, cycles, human behaviorCycles, Predictions, Earth events, A'jiNebula, Earth's atmosphere, heat & cold, eclipse, prophecyTrue PropheciesPredictionsDirect Inspiration, Walter RussellMisc. vortex, matter, periodic table, solar system, fractals, pi and cMisc. 2, E=mc2, geometry, pi and alphabet codes, chemical elementsMisc. 3, Sacred mathematics, geometry, music, harmonics, cosmology, cyclesMisc. 4 life and planets, E-O-IH and geometry, DNA, facial recognitionMisc. 5 human DNA, neuroscience, 9-8-5, 33, creativity, solar powerProphecy, Pan, Harvest & DNAMagnetospheres - Solar planetary vortex - 3D HologramsEther Vortex PhysicsLanguage - Symbols - Pictographs - Creator's nameTornados, name vs concept, flat earth theory, UV-light, sympathetic resonance, drujasTae and facial recognition, Ham, Shem, Guatama, I'huan, Ghan racesOriginal Israelites and JewsMathematics, Reality, primary 3, E-O-IH, Cevorkum, EthereansAngelic star travelers, Human origins, racesVisitors and Comments

Enter subhead content here

Page 11 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY: Aether, aether refers to all the forms of matter too small to be easily detected by humans. To designate this we label matter smaller than an electron (undetectable matter) as aether.
Our latest book: Universal Cycle Theory .
"In short, we propose that vortex motion brings aether particles together, forming the less mobile complexes that we call ordinary matter. What we observe as universal gravitation is produced by the still-active aether particles that exist wherever ordinary matter does not. With celestial bodies, complexification is a function of the velocity of vortex rotation, with the density of ordinary matter decreasing with distance from the center. At the same time, the density and activity of aether increases with distance from the center. This produces a “gravitational pressure gradient,” which acts like our own atmospheric pressure gradient—only in reverse."

Maxwell"s Molecular Vortex Model - Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell hypothesized  that magnets contain molecules rotating as synchronized vortices, and these vortices created a directional flow of small magnetic particles. In 1861, Maxwell summarized his vortex theory as follows:"I have shown how the forces acting between magnets, electric currents, and matter capable of magnetic induction may be accounted for on the hypothesis of the magnetic field being occupied with innumerable vortices of revolving matter, ...However, Maxwell never felt satisfied with his molecular vortex model. Eventually, he panned the idea - pages 229-230 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY NEOMECHANICS OF HIERARCHICALLY INFINITE UNIVERSE (2011) by Stephan J. Puetz and Glenn Borchardt, PH.D (Geology-Geophysics).
after Newton formulated his law of gravity, aether theories suffered a slow, agonizing death. Einstein's theory of general relativity put the final nail in aether's coffin. Nonetheless, aether theories still occasionally resurrect for one simple reason. They offer the mechanical explanation that field theories cannot.- page 230
The last highly regarded aether proponent, British physicist Paul Dirac, helped develop quantum mechanics. In 1933, he won the Nobel Prize for his efforts. In 1951, he explained his reasoning in a Nature article entitled IS THERE AN AETHER? ...Yet, Dirac's attempts to revive aether theories failed for the same reason that befell other mechanical ideas. Even though he advocated aether, Dirac remained loyal to quantum  mechanics and field theory. The contradictions inherent in the simultaneous beliefs prevented the development of his aether ideas. - page 230-231.
Many attempts by Cartesian natural philosphers to test Descartes' various ideas on the dynamics of circularly moving particles (e.g., by using large spinning barrels filled with small particles) did not meet the predictions advanced in the Priciples." [Stanford: Descartes, 2009] 
However, a spinning barrel of small particles falls short of replicating the environment of an aethereal vortex, while a bowl of spinning water comes closer to the desired effect. That is, circulating water follows the laws of rotational dynamics and fluid dynamics better than small particles. A few common items placed in a container of water simulate gravitational motion, from this point forward, called the water vortex experiment. 
Water vortex simulation of spiral and elliptical galaxies .
Water at the center of the circulation sinks (similar to a low-pressure weather system), while the water along the outer radius of the circulation rises. In spite of its simplicity, this experiment reveals a wealth of information about gravity modeled as a fluid.
The results closely match the known laws of planetary motion because the experiment shows that the periods increase with distance from the center. While exact velocities are difficult to determine for this crude experiment, the periods roughly appear to coincide with Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion. The conformity between the motions in the water vortex experiment and the gravitational motions in the Solar System suggests a connection between the rotation of a vortex and gravitation - just as Descartes had suspected.
Even though the experiment shows many aspects of gravity. It falls short of being a perfect simulation. nevertheless, the experiment indicates that circulation plays a role in gravitation. This is important because, even though the equations from Kepler and Newton describe planetary motions very well mathematically, they fail to explain why these motions occur. Rotational dynamics and fluid dynamics also match gravitational characteristics.
This current (2011) scientific book backs up the vortex theory of Oahspe:

Some say The Universal cycle Theory is "Bigger than Principia", "more revolutionary than Newton's Principia."
"All of science fits into this framework and the paradoxes, fantasies, unicorns, and the illogical thought of modern physics are swept away for what will be known for hundreds of years as a sentinel work in human history and scientific knowledge. Step aside Principia. You have been replaced."
As for the vortex motion of the planets was proven wrong by Sir Isaac Newton:
"Based upon the assumptions Newton made, his arguments clearly refuted Descartes theory [aether vortex theory].
However Newton's criticism falls apart ...in neomechanics, that aether consists of infinitely divisible matter distributed heterogeneously. That is, heterogeneously divisible aether interacts with baryonic matter differently than the homogeneous elementary aether assumed by Newton and Descartes.
Newton assumed that the "solid sphere" at the center of the vortex caused the spiral motion, Hence Newton argued that without an external source of energy to sustain the spiral, the vortex would quickly die. However, as already discussed in Chapter 6, the core does not cause a vortex. Instead, collisions of matter with other forms of matter cause a vortex. A vortex develops from the combined spinning from all the matter involved in the original collision. Once formed, the inertia from all the matter within the vortex keep it circulating - until friction finally stops the spiral. Newton was correct in the sense that friction eventually causes a vortex to die. However, he was incorrect about the sphere at the center being the sole source of its momentum. A vortex behaves as a collection of matter (aethers and baryons) moving in harmony. The movements within the vortex sustain its circulation. In the process, the circulation causes accretion, excretion, and gravitation...
Newton incorrectly assumed that the aether circulates in a perfect circle. Hence, he concluded several things. First, he noted that the planets orbit the Sun in ellipses which is inconsistent with circular motion.
Second, he noted that natural satellites orbit the planets. This is inconsistent with a single circular vortex. Third, he argued that comets move in extremely eccentric orbits. In combination these three independent motions were highly inconsistent with perfectly circular rotation.
However, the concept of a simple uniform vortex clouded Newton's platonic view of reality...every vortex contains sub-vortices [as Oahspe said in the book of Cosmogony], just as every microcosm contains sub-microcosms...aether particles and baryonic matter influence each other univironmentally as they circulate together. Likewise, eccentric and irregular orbits develop in all vortices. Collisions happen continuously - occasionally being significant. When that happens, the new motion may send the object flying out beyond the far edges of the Solar system; or it may cause a subsequent collision with another celestial body; or it could cause an unstable eccentric orbit similar to a comet's...Again, it bears repeating that the motions of a vortex are never perfectly circular, like Newton assumed....In summary, Newton based his arguments against Descartes' vortex theory on idealistic views of aether. Newton easily won the debate because the proponents of vortex theory agreed with Newton's indeterministic assumptions. Conversely, the neomechanical model describes aether in different terms than those envisioned by Newton and his peers.
Simple observations of motion reveal the direction of the vortex's primary circulation. Kepler's orbital laws and Newton's gravitational law approximate these motions quite well. - pages 235-236 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY (2011) by Stephen J. Puetz (mathematician, statistician) and Glenn Borchardt, PH.D.(Geology-Geophysics).

Page 239 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY: ...gravitation results from interactions of matter-in-motion. This eliminates the need for the attractive force postulated by Newton and the curved empty space suggested by Einstein.
The neomechanical model of gravity involves new concepts such as total-mass, solid-accretion, gaseous-accretion, and layered distribution.
Kepler devised the equations that describe orbital motions and periods.
Newton provided the inverse-square law that describes gravitational intensity.
Newton's equations and calculations are accurate and they helped man get to the moon (space program).
Newton's equations and calculations work because as Oahspe said "it is a trifling difference whether a man prophesy [calculate] by a vortex or by a planet".
Oahspe Book of Cosmology and Prophecy: Chapter III:
19. It is not the intention, in these revelations, to give new calculations in regard to occurrences on the planets; it is a trifling difference whether a man prophesy by a vortex or by a planet. Wherein he erreth in regard to judging the cause of things, he should be put on the right road.
Oahspe Book of Cosmology and Prophecy: Chapter III:
18. Planetary disturbances are not caused by any power or effect of one planet on another; the cause of the disturbances lieth in the vortices wherein they float. Mortals can not see the vortices; their only means of prophesying lieth in corpor. A man may prophesy of the moon by calculations of the disturbances of the tides. But to attribute to the tides the CAUSE of the moon's position would be no more erroneous than to attribute the cause of tides to the moon.
Kepler and Newton describe planetary motions very well mathematically, they fail to explain why these motions occur. - page 239 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY.
"For every spheriod, its current mass determines the magnitude of its gravitation. Newton correctly identified mass as the primary contributor to gravitational intensity, and he developed a great equation for the Solar System's gravity." - Page 254 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY.
Mathematical gravitationl equivalence statements of vortex and planet:
Spheriod = globular vortex or planet or star.
Mass determines magnitude of gravitation = more mass = more gravitational magnitude = greater gravitational influence.
More massive planet = more gravitational magnitude.
More massive vortex = more gravitational magnitude.
More massive planet = more massive vortex.

Gravitation follows the inverse-square law, just as Newton said.
Newton's Radial "Force" of Gravity
The radial portion of the spiral vortex is Newton's gravitational force. It is explained by the following equation:
F=Gm1m2/r2 (The Universal Law of Gravitation)
F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.
Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.
Inverse square law of vortex:
In most vortices, the fluid flow velocity is greatest next to its axis and decreases in inverse proportion to the distance from the axis.
gravity is a centripetal force, and can be envisaged clearly as such in Newtonian mechanics.
Centripetal just means a force that is "radially inwards" ("directed towards the centre"). The electric force, for example, is also clearly centripetal. (It's slightly harder to define "centripetal" for the magnetic force.)
Does a vortex demonstrate centripetal or centrifugal force?
Indeed the best answer is yes and yes.
a parcel of fluid pursuing vortex, or other curved or rotary motion is no different from any other particle in mechanics.
the gravitational force is perpendicular to the velocity.
the gravitational force is perpendicular to the direction of motion.
per·pen·dic·u·lar: a straight line at an angle of 90° to a given line, plane, or surface.
OAHSPE: Book of Cosmogony and Prophecy Chapter 1:
"9. The name of the force of the vortex is called vortexya, that is, positive force, because it is arbitrary and exerteth east and west. As in the case of a wheel turning on its axis, its force will be at right angles with its axis, the extreme center of which will be no force. "
A line is said to be perpendicular to another line if the two lines intersect at a right angle.
A right angle is equal to 90 degrees.
gaseous-matter - The portion of a microcosm containing free floating submicrocosms. From the human perspective, gaseous-matter can be thought of as aether. [gaseous-matter = fluid or solution]. ...aether particles are microcosms smaller than nucleons and electrons.
OAHSPE BOOK OF JEHOVIH IV:15 "First as vapor the vortex carrieth it forth, and as it condenseth, its friction engendereth heat, and it is molten, becoming as a globe of fire in heaven." 
gaseous-mass - unlike solid-matter, gaseous-matter is not fixed to the microcosm [like the magnetic field of a magnet] instead, gaseous matter flows freely through it
OAHSPE (1881): Book of Cosmogony and Prophecy CHAPTER I:
48. The power of a magnet ...vortexya floweth through the magnet, even as water floweth through a tube.
Page 13 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY says Field: redefined as a circulation of matter. Rather than being matterless, think of a field as a circulation of aether particles. When a vortex forms, aether particles circulate around the center of the vortex. The circulating aether causes an effect described as a field.
[Field = electromagnetic, gravitational, quantum, etc ...] 
Neomechanical gravity results from simple processes. As pushing theorists correctly surmised, it results from interactions other than magical attraction [Newton] or curved empty space  [Einstein].
In reality, gravitation occurs because microcosms push other microcosms in predictable directions. ...atoms tend to be pushed toward the core  [positive vortex'ya - Oahspe], while aether particles tend to be pushed away from the center [negative vortex'ya - Oahspe] - including molecular gases, atomic gases, and the aethers.
The Michelson-Morley experiment ruled out a stationary ether, does it mean that light and EM waves propagate through a dynamic ether?

First, if we accept the math and mechanics of relativity which was created by Lorentz to describe an earth that is, in fact, moving through the aether, then it is necessary to accept that we have not ruled out that the earth moves through the aether.

You can get more details on that here: Shiva Meucci's answer to Can you explain to me why we need length contraction and time dilation in Einstein’s theory? How does it work?

So, your initial assertion, while widely stated, is not factually correct.

While you may be speaking of complete aether entrainment the Aether drag hypothesis may be preferable.

To rule out either of these would require modern experimentation with satellites. The older arguments against partial drag are based upon some very flimsy and unfounded assumptions about the nature, quality, and behavior of aether.

For instance, it was assumed that light of different colors would have a different velocity with respect to bodies which are moving with respect to the aether but this requires certain assumptions about aether that are irrational with respect to the evidence for it. (which points to superfluid behavior)

Very little thought is put into assertions that stellar aberration would not occur in aether or in an aether drag situation. That phenomena was one of the first evidences for the aether and what works in a telescope works just as well for a bubble of aether around the planet. (concurrent with the magnetosphere)

And there is, however, evidence for partial drag. Fresnel’s coefficient of aether drag was proven very directly by the Fizeau experiment and is still the math we use today to describe the index of refraction, it’s simply been renamed. The idea, however, came from aether drag and is basically Fresnel’s description of the Hot chocolate effect in motion.

Furthermore, other arguments against aether drag were based upon classical ideas which ignore the relativistic effects which Lorentz first described and Einstein later used.

Additionally, phenomena like “frame-dragging” and many other fluid-like behaviors of “spacetime” all point to an aether as described by Lorentz.

And finally, the kicker…

The Michelson experiment in 1887 was not random data but precisely the dual sine wave of data points one would expect of a wind. He misreported the maximal readings because he presumed an east-west wind instead of a local wind that rotated with the magnetosphere. He reported on only east-west readings instead of the reliable maximal readings which were much more northerly.

Only Michelson and a later colleague, Dayton Miller, ever used white light interferometry to detect the aether wind and both of them got clear non-null signals that were of the same magnitude and direction. Only white light is capable of eliminating a huge variety of problems with this experiment which is why Michelson who designed it used sodium light to calibrate but used white light to test. (instead of just continuing to use the sodium lamp)

Dayton Miller did tens of thousands of Michelson experiments with specially designed “double-blinding” procedures, over many years, which showed a reliable variance of the aether wind which was dependent upon the sidereal day and the proximity of the earth to the sun.

He won an award in 1925 from the AAAS for discovering the aether wind and directly blocked Einstein’s consideration for a Nobel for relativity.

That history was swept under the rug by his successor in academia (Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics at Case) who no longer wanted to live under his shadow: Robert S Shankland, someone who was well known for attempting to gain/maintain the friendship of, the then world-famous, Albert Einstein.



The Newcomb Cleveland Prize of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is annually awarded to author(s) of outstanding scientific paper published in the Research Articles or Reports sections of Science. Established in 1923, funded by Newcomb Cleveland who remained anonymous until his death in 1951, and for this period it was known as the AAAS Thousand Dollar Prize. "The prize was inspired by Mr. Cleveland's belief that it was the scientist who counted and who needed the encouragement an unexpected monetary award could give."[1]
Recipients, List of winners [2][4]
1925 Dayton C. Miller The Michelson-Morley Ether Drift Experiment, its History and Significance.


Sep 8, 2006 - A concept abandoned in the 19th century is being revived by a physicist as an alternative to dark matter,
Glenn Starkman, a cosmologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, is hitting back with a blast from the past.
Starkman's controversial counterproposal is that the presence of ether in the universe better explains the galaxies' behavior.
His theories were recently reported in the August 26 issue of New Scientist magazine.
"Galaxies spin faster than they should, given the amount of matter we see in them. The possibility we've gone with for a long time
is that there's some unaccounted-for mass generating that extra gravity," Starkman said.
"But the other possibility is that the amount of mass we see generates more gravity than we thought. That's where ether comes in."
Several high-profile theoretical physicists have lined up to support Starkman's theory, including Jacob Bekenstein, theoretical
physics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, and Andreas Albrecht, cosmologist and physics professor at the
University of California, Davis.
computer simulation of dark matter:
computer simulation of dark matter looks like Network of Etherean worlds and roadways (Oahspe plate 24 God's Book of Ben)
long before it was detected indirectly using gravitational lensing and 51 years BEFORE it was first postulated and its existense and properties were first inferred by any man on earth and 133 years before it was seen for first time via intense radiation from a quasar.
Dark matter's cosmic web revealed
UCSC Scientists Capture First Cosmic Web Filaments at Keck Observatory
January 19, 2014
Computer simulations suggest that matter in the universe is distributed in a "cosmic web" of filaments, as seen in the image above from a large-scale dark-matter simulation (Bolshoi simulation, by Anatoly Klypin and Joel Primack). The inset is a zoomed-in, high-resolution image of a smaller part of the cosmic web, 10 million light-years across, from a simulation that includes gas as well as dark matter (credit: S. Cantalupo). The intense radiation from a quasar can, like a flashlight, illuminate part of the surrounding cosmic web (highlighted in the image) and make a filament of gas glow, as was observed in the case of quasar UM287.
This information (connecting dark matter filaments and Oahspe images showing the Earth in Etherian worlds, swamps, mountains and roadways) goes back to 2009 or 2010 at this website (link below) by Ruth and Vernon (who put together the Oahspe Standard Edition).

John Bell, interviewed by Paul Davies in "The Ghost in the Atom" has suggested that an aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light. He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p.49]. Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and more elegant, but Bell suggests that doesn't rule it out. Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bell also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device. That is, many problems are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether.
Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being "bitty" at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. Instead of being "smooth", the vacuum is described as looking like "quantum foam". It has been suggested that this seething mass of virtual particles may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether.

Dark energy is sometimes called quintessence due to its similarity to the classical aether. Modern physics is full of concepts such as free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, and vacuum energy.
The 19th century had the ether, the 20th century had the quantum wave state, quantum foam and the EPR Effect (inseparabilty).

Any comments about Oahspe or this website? Email Me. I look forward to talking to you about Oahspe and this website

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here