For instance. It is fact that our solar system rotates and is considered a vortex. Are usual concept of our solar system is that we are out here in space floating all alone in an isolated manner. But a theorem attributed to Helmholtz says that a vortex filament (also called a vortex tube, the small end of the vortex) cannot end in a fluid. It must extend to infinity, form a closed loop (like a smoke ring) or end at a solid wall of some sort. What does the vortex tube for our solar system do? We don’t resemble a smoke ring so we probably aren’t forming a closed loop. If our vortex tube extends to infinity so much the better, since this would solve the mystery of why so many of our equations result in infinity. String theory has been so popular because it resolves infinity but since it is riddled with problems many think it is likely not the answer.
There are so many stars in the night sky and if each one represents the foci of a vortex, as our solar system does, then each star has a vortex tube extending from it and coursing through space. Trillions of vortex tubes…could this be dark matter?

Here’s another one. Light contains energy, even when it is cold. According to relativity this energy should have generated mass and the mass should have generated gravity, but it does not and the reason why is not understood. UNLESS, of course, its role as the foci of two bodies is examined. Vortical law states the foci owes its existence to the masses surrounding it; take away the two masses and their foci disappears, therefore the foci does not have its own gravity, it is in essence “borrowing” its existence from the masses rotating about it.
Protons and electrons exchange photons so that the proton may hold the electron nearby (Feynman, Six Easy Pieces.) We aren’t studying protons and electrons in outer space somewhere, it’s being done right here on counterclockwise spinning earth, making protons and electrons actual constituents of earth therefore rotating with it. So the proton is rotating counterclockwise, the electron is rotating counterclockwise- lo and behold! hardly a coincidence that a photon, light, is found between these bodies.

Indeed, the LAWS are revealed and the machinery is simple. Its predictions are quite measurable.

“It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.”

It doesn’t say that because it’s a mathematical equation. Until some underlying dynamics for quantum gravity are widely accepted, you can’t rule out that the spacetime fabric causing general relativity (gravity and contraction) is outside the system, as Feynman explained in his Nov 1964 Cornell lectures which were filmed for BBC TV, “The Character of Physical Law” (broadcast on BBC2 in 1965), published in his book of similar title, pp. 171-3:

“The inexperienced [theorists who have never made contact with reality by getting a theory which predicts something measurable], and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. … There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving in on a territory.”

On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like this: >E S

When we speak of entangled electrons which vortex dynamics says can only be entangled because one of the electrons moves counterclockwise and the other clockwise, we notice they do not have a foci between them; they would have to both be moving the same direction to have a foci. Therefore entangled electrons do not meet the criteria for existing in spacetime because they have no foci, one of general relativity’s three requirements. So what is the mathematical formula for spacetime? It is one that encompasses the sun, planets and the spacetime amongst them.
Vortex dynamics has the equation to describe a vortical unit as “Mass 1 + Mass 2, M1>M2 and both spinning the same direction and creating a foci between them, divided by the distance squared between them,” and this distance is measured from the center of each mass. If we call mass 1 earth and mass 2 mars, and the distance squared between them (measured from their centers) and containing their foci between them, the sun, then this equation from vortex dynamics describes general relativity but in a more precise manner. More precise because masses 1 and 2 are attracting each other because they are caught in each other’s flow fields (gravitation defined,) and the foci of their attraction, the sun, is quite electromagnetic don’t you think? Electromagnetism and gravitation are together in one vortical motion law! So there is every reason to consider vortical law when considering general relativity and again, this view does not contradict science because the solar system is already a vortex and so already falls under the mathematical law of vortex dynamics, but it goes further in explaining the workings of spacetime.

The problem is that electron is nowadays supposed to be in an almost metaphysical superposition of spin states until measured, which indirectly (via the EPR-Bell-Aspect work) leads to the entanglement concept you mention. But Dr Thomas Love of California State University last week sent me a preprint, “Towards an Einsteinian Quantum Theory”, where he shows that the superposition principle is a fallacy, due to two versions of the Schroedinger equation: a system described by the time-dependent Schroedinger equation isn’t in an eigenstate between interactions.

“The quantum collapse occurs when we model the wave moving according to Schroedinger (time-dependent) and then, suddenly at the time of interaction we require it to be in an eigenstate and hence to also be a solution of Schroedinger (time-independent). The collapse of the
wave function is due to a discontinuity in the equations used to model the physics, it is not inherent in the physics.”

The best way to understand that the basic field equation of GR is empirical fact is extending Penrose’s arguments:

(1) Represent Newton’s empirical gravity potential in the tensor calculus of Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita: R_uv = 4.Pi(G/c^2)T_uv, which applies to low speeds/weak fields.

(2) Consider objects moving past the sun, gaining gravitational potential energy, and being deflected by gravity. The mean angle of the object to the radial line from the gravity force from the sun is 90 degrees, so for slow-moving objects, 50% of the energy is used in increasing the speed of the object, and 50% in deflecting the path. But because light cannot speed up, 100% of the gravitational potential energy gained by light on its approach to the sun is used to deflection, so this is the mechanism why light suffers twice the deflection suggested by Newton’s law. Hence for light deflection: R_uv = 8.Pi(G/c^2)T_uv.

(3) To unify the different equations in (1) and (2) above, you have to modify (2) as follows: R_uv - 0.5Rg_uv = 8.Pi(G/c^2)T_uv, where g_uv is the metric. This is the Einstein-Hilbert field equation.

At low speeds and in weak gravity fields, R_uv = - 0.5Rg_uv, so the equation becomes the Newtonian approximation R_uv = 4.Pi(G/c^2)T_uv.

GR is based entirely on empirical facts. Speculation only comes into it after 1915, via the “cosmological constant” and other “fixes”. Think about the mechanism for the gravitation and the contraction which constitute pure GR: it is quantum field theory, radiation exchange.

If you want a “vortex dynamics” explanation of gravity, check out LQG and the “spin foam vacuum” QFT -> GR solution of Smolin et al.