Tornadoe's and Zero Point Theory

As a part of understanding tornado dynamics, weather systems etc, it is well understood that ambient land mass conditions are key factors.
Zero Point Theory may be able to contribute to this understanding, as graphically and over simplistically, demonstrated with the dynamics of tornadoes.
An example of a Culminant Center of Gravity [COG] * see next post

Edited image examples to help explain the notion: c/o http://www.stfrancis.edu/content/ns/bromer/earthsci/student4/tornadoes/Alicia.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears the deeper the cog is the stronger the tornado. Which makes sense in regards to how the zero point [cog] can increase the strength of it's effect due to the increased culmanation COG in the land mass involved.
The notion could also be extended to cyclones and hurricanes and further incorporate the Corriolis Force phenonema.

Care to discuss?
*I apologise in advance for the poor OP design as this is an article in progress and an extremely difficult concept or notion to convey

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A simple diagram to demonstrate the notion of a culminant Center of gravity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A centre of gravity that is created by the combined COG's of multiple objects of mass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

are you attempting to kill discussion? And why?
Maybe we shoud take your "flaming" to another thread?

 

Please tell me you're doing deliberate self parody, that this is all some overly self aware comedy sketch about cranks. You've noticed stronger tornadoes have wider funnels. Well done, you've managed to make an observation anyone who has ever seen a tornado has made. None of that has anything to do with your nonsense 'Zero point theory'. If you're honestly trying to shoe horn it in to something real world in such a desperate manner I think you demonstrate to everyone the complete vapidity of this work of yours far more than anyone else could. That's often a crank's undoing, they try to insert their work everywhere, anywhere, in order to convince themselves it's not a massive waste of time and in doing so convince everyone else it's a massive waste of time.

 

maybe you just don't understand how science works?

 

and how it always starts with observation and then discussion.
I guess ....you wish to block discussion as well?

 

It is fun to makeup completely absurd crap and put it on the net - huh? If you are using any poweful hallucinogens before posting I recommend cutting back on the dosage! If you are not using hallucinogens - maybe you should start so you at least have an excuse for ides like this!

 

does that mean you don't want to discuss the topic?

 

When observing images of tornadoes [ as I have never seen one first hand] one can note that the depth of a logcally [hypothetically] concluded point at the end of the funnel could bear a direct relationship on the strength of the tornado. it is not width of the funnel in question as Alphanumeric has incorrectly suggested but the depth that the funnel or vortex of "energy" may penetrate the ground or in some cases be above the ground. [as in the Force 1 tornado displayed]

 

Of course not, the whole idea is silly and stupid

 

Why extrapolate the sides of the funnel to a point?

 

As I originally said,

This is total nonsense.

 

You really want to play that game? Hands up whose a professional scientist....... Oh, just me. Hands up whose work passes peer review..... Oh, just me again. Hands up who could pass an undergraduate exam on maths or physics..... Wow, just me again.

If you think what you're doing is science then you're either delusional or profoundly naive. You have no set of postulates from which you derive the predictions of your 'theory'. You have nothing formal. You have no testable predictions. You have no deductive logic. The entirty of your 'work' is your preferences and opinions, there's nothing objective about it. In every single way you are not doing science. And in every single way I'm more a scientist than you. You can tell me how science works when you demonstrate you can do any.

Except you haven't made just observations, you've already started labelling things, claiming your zero point theory somehow has something to say about tornadoes. Except you don't have anything which can objectively be called a theory (nor even an hypothesis).
The observation you've made is stronger tornadoes are bigger. From that you've jumped to making claims your work, which is non-existant, has something to say in that regard. That's not 'observation and then discussion', it's 'observation and then vapid or baseless assertions about something you cannot present coherently or quantitatively'.

You'd be taken seriously if you write down a set of postulates and then derived something about atmospheric phemomena, including tornadoes. But you don't have any model of weather, fluids, energy, basic mechanics. Nothing. You have a couple of lines 'shopped onto pictures of tornadoes which make the frankly stunning (

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) observations the funnel of a tornado is funnel shaped and stronger tornadoes are bigger. Well done, you've demonstrated you aren't blind. Except to your own short falls.

 

what can I say when you have said it all by yourself...[chuckle]

discussion is a foriegn word to you yes?

Etymology:

Latin: discutere from dis- + quatere
discussion (plural discussions)
Noun:
Conversation or debate concerning a particular topic.

There was then a long discussion of whether to capitalize words like "east".
This topic is not open to discussion.
Text giving further detail on a subject.

incorrect! I made the observation that stronger Tornadoes where deeper in theor penetration of the land mass... Do you have a problem with using quotes of what?

again you have mistaken the images and that it is the depth and not the size. Of course the size is relative to the distance of depth of field and is unable to be quantified.
Can you explain this constant error of yours?
If you wish to discuss scientific EGO, why not start a thread on just that subject.

 

good question , thanks.

When observing funnel type phenonema such as that of water draining in a sink, cyclonic formations etc, or other whirlpool type phenonema it can be seen that the spiraling action of the whirlpool has a center normally at it's center of Gravity [ attraction ]
A tornado obviously appears similar and it is easy to make the hypothetical conclusion that at the fulcrum of the tornado is a point of attraction thus generating the spiraling effect. The stunning thing though is that there appears to be evidence that the strength of the tornado is directly related to the depth of that center of attraction with in the land mass it "appears" to be penetrating.

All I have done is indicated such in the image, and put forward the notion that this phenonema may support the notion of Zero Point Theory
and I am quite open to discuss it if others wish to do so....both as a mere observation and also if wished how it relates to zero point theory.

 

I like to engage in informed discussion. Simply making random claims is not an informed discussion.

Since the cones you've drawn have depth related to the width of the funnel when it touches the ground you've gone from something observable, ie the width of the funnel when it touches the ground, to something which follows from it trivially, ie the cone shape is bigger and thus deeper. This doesn't have anything in the way

If I'm misunderstanding you then perhaps the problem is you aren't saying anything precise or providing any clear logical reasoning. Instead you provide a few photo-shopped pictures of cones and the claim it relates to something incoherent and nonsensical you call Zero Point Theory.

I haven't mentioned ego, certainly not scientific ego. I've commented on your complete lack of substance or justification for your claims. You wondered in another thread whether your work could be moved to the main science forum. Clearly you think your 'insights' are sufficiently presented to merit being in the main physics/maths forum. That's your ego showing, while simultaneously ignoring that ZPT fails every criteria to be called scientific or science related.

 

What are the masses that result in the COG?

 

hmmm.... one could start with atmospheric masses which are low denisity compared to land mass... How or why the land mass denisty would change could be and most likely would be temperature orientated both from undergroudn thermal activity and above ground. Possibly thermal satelite imaging of the land mass may show some sort of co-relation when relating the advent of tornadoes and and rapid fluctuations in local land mass density. Something that possiby a specialist would consider and maybe discard...

 

@Aphanumeric

there is a famous song by the Rolling Stones:
[video=youtube;EM_p1Az05Jo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_p1Az05Jo[/video]
seriously though,
maybe the poster you are looking for will come along one day and actually provide you with the intellectual challenge that you want