[Vo]:

[Esa Ruoho]

Looked through the Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

Apparently, Centrifugal force is "center-fleeing".
The opposite of Center is, apparently, "Edge".
Centripetal Force is the opposite of Centrifugal force, therefore Centripetal Force is "Edge-fleeing" (center-concentrating.)

It would seem that  this edge-fleeing, centripetal force, has, shapewise, direct connections to the fibonacci ratio, and the harmonic series  / music of the spheres ( Pythagoras / Kepler ).
Walter Schauberger, Viktor Schauberger's son,  put together Pythagoras and Kepler, and realized that his father's "cycloid spiral space curve" (that Walter spent the rest of his life putting down to physics, math, and proper science, as opposed to his father's more intuitive words), was actually based on the harmonic series of Pythagoras and Kepler, and mapped it into the Hyperbolic Cone. imho the end result was the realization that nature works on  non-euclidian geometry instead of euclidian geometry. euclidian geometry is apparently  what  our centrifugal / explosive / heat-based / straight line / circle -based technology currently uses for propulsion and energy-creation.

Since I don't have what i wrote down from the webster's encyclopedic dictionary, I'll go and see the Merriam Webster dictionary. it claims this:
Centrifugal : proceeding or acting in a direction away from a center or axis
Centrifugal Force: the apparent force that is felt by an object moving in a curved path that acts outwardly away from the center of rotation
Centripetal Force: the force that is necessary to keep an object moving in a curved path and that is directed inward toward the center of rotation <a string on the end of which a stone is whirled about exerts centripetal force on the stone>

From your very nice (!!) web archives, i have found these messages:
>Frank, the spiral ring helix observed in a water vortex is, as Schauberger stated, a " reverse flow". Centrifugal and centripetal forces within the confines of the parabolic >cone of the liquid spiral scream to us that the inner face " must" be smooth. It is NOT, it is ringed with spirals. Magnetic lines of force acting on metals shavings may not >show the opposing force like  a water vortex  simply because they ARE one stage down,

Whilst I can't claim I know the difference between the parabolic cone, and the hyperbolic cone ( http://www.sectioaurea.com/sectioaurea/spirali.gif ) ,  might there not be a  ready explanation in biomimetics and fluid dynamics, as to the possibility of there being a centripetal, cooling, friction/reducing, suction-inducing, concentrating, up-building force,  to  offset  the centrifugal  heating, friction-increasing, pressure-inducing, decaying, destroying force?

the Photophoresis experiments of Professor Felix Ehrenhaft also seem to instill in this reader the thought that there is a connection between  centripetal vortical movement, and the "spinning around its own axis" of Ehrenhaft,  the rising egg experiment of schauberger+kokaly  and so on.

please share any thoughts on centripetal / vortical / inwards movement and the possibility of using that for "sucking" material forwards, instead of trying to centrifugally "blow" material forwards, whilst meeting immense friction and degradation..

Schauberger also seems to have designed many suction-based turbines, which are  of the non-euclidian geometry (the issue here is that when he was building stuff in 1920s - 1950s, there was no 3d-modeling software, no computer-guided laser-cutting tools for cutting metal  - an dtherefore it has been quite difficult to replicate the very natural, spiraline shapes that he was after).

there is a real poverty of proper information  online  on Viktor Schauberger. websites such as rexresearch, keelynet, peswiki, frank germano's website, and others, do have the inklings of it, but the generic information on schauberger tends to focus on "quick-fix" areas of interest, i.e. "how he was suppressed" "how he build a ufo for the nazis in ww2" and other such  non-information. the deeper realizations of Viktor and Walter Schauberger, however, seem to have escaped the "wow! hurrah!"-reaction-looking people who skim the websites looking for a "woah! cool! too bad the government"-blah which is non-constructive.

this is one of the reasons why there are hardly any artifacts of Viktor Schauberger  built. too many sitters, instead of creative,intuitive,doers.

also, your list had this brilliant thing:

>One of the great minds of this century, an outsider to established science, has recognized the folly of this view and coined a term for the antidote.  He calls it syntropy. In >his book "Cosmography", R. Buckminster Fuller writes: "The reader will discover that the inexorable course of the gradual running down of the energy of the universe - >that is, entropy - is only part of the picture. Entropy has a complementary phase, which we designated syntropy".
>We can now assert that syntropy is real, and that it is closely associated with the second kind of motion discussed above, with the centripedal, the vortex motion. ...
>In an article based on the research of Viktor Schauberger, regarding the functions of vortex motion, Schaffer writes in 1972:
>"If the second law (of thermodynamics) does not hold true in the case of vortex motion, one could postulate the following cycle:
>Heat --> Vortex --> Motion--> Friction-->Heat
>Vortices therefore should be able to change heat energy into motive energy. This would necessitate an acceleration of low and a cooling effect.  Both of these can be >observed in the case of vortices. ......
>"The descriptive language used by physicists is mathematics.  It is adequate to describe a number of observed phenomena, but depending on what phenomena is to be >described, physicists conveniently switch mathematics, thereby changing their whole frame of reference.  There is no one theory that can adequately describe all the >forces know to exists and the search for a unified field theory is running into serious problems. Joseph Hassleberger"

thank you so very much for this list existing. i had no idea that one of my personal heroes, buckminster fuller, had noted that there was an opposite for entropy.
this "syntropy", coupled in with the suggestions by a few people, that a vortex creates "negative entropy" (i freely admit, i dont know what that is - is that syntropy?), and with the realization that Viktor Schauberger was one of the first Biomimetic (?) intuitive engineers  , should mean that eventually we'll escape from the non-information and start realizing that the time is nigh that schauberger moves from being considered fairy tales, to being one of the more important people in carge of  developing ecological technology.

I have yesterday created a video-clip of the egg rising inside a water-container, when a vortex is created at the surface of the water. I asked on some finnish science-forums, but mostly got ridicule and nothing else. would you guys be able to explain why exactly does the egg start spinning around its own axis, and then rise, because of the vortical movement caused by spinning a spoon at the top?

I really hope this email isn't taken as 1) troll 2) annoyance
I would love to pose some more questions, since it seems that  schauberger has never really been reasonably connected with "fluid dynamics" "biomimetics" and other such, newer branches of science.

I am starving of information, and tired of the "quick fix" people who just want another article on "c()nspiracy, ufo, alien, nazi, ww2" intrigue.

Please, from the bottom of my heart, please help.