"In this case the word "believers" refers to the so called "scientists" posting on these boards. "

Please stop putting everything in "scare quotes" it makes you sound like Dr. Evil from the Austin powers series. Its bad rhetorical technique to boot.

"DL calls the "vortex theory" pseudoscience, which then would mean that a vortex can not be studied scientifically,

Okay, you have wildly misunderstood the point. It is not the case that pseudoscience is pseudoscience because it is a subject that can't be studied scientifically. Scientific methodology is merely a set of disciplines and techniques for making observations and describing things. Nearly any claim, proposition or phenomenon can be studied scientifically as such. Pseudoscience is Pseudoscience because it doesn't submit itself to scientific inquiry. What this means is that either scientific mehtodology (a) IS NOT employed or (b) scientific methodology is employed IMPROPERLY OR WITH BIAS, sometimes unethically and/or (c) When it is employed, the results are ignored or refuted on unscientific basis (see a, b or c).

yet there are mathematical analysis done by various people showing how a "vortex" works. Vortex of rotating mass can certainly be studied and understood in the terms of physics. "

Okay, we have a lot of work to do here. Lets start with this:

First off, I can describe anything in terms of something else via metaphor and analogy. I can often do this very convincingly, because everything is like something else in some way from some viewpoint. Love is like a red red rose, but also sometimes like a disease, but also sometimes like a summers day. But the trivial observation that love is like a red red rose does not call for a "Red Red Rose" theory of Love or psychology of love.

Do you understand this?

Metaphor is the lowest level of explication in terms of generating factual claims, factual knowledge (of course, this says nothing about ither flavors of knowing). It is the lowest level of explication because everything is like everything else in some way, and it says very little to make the observation that A 'is like' B.

the point is that saying 'everything is like a vortex' is NOT a scientific theory, it is a metaphor.

Now that we have that as a principle, I want to return to your statement again:

yet there are mathematical analysis done by various people showing how a "vortex" works. Vortex of rotating mass can certainly be studied and understood in the terms of physics. "

Absolutely, a Vortex is a well studied thing in terms of science- but that does NOT mean that this mataphorical assertion that Mass/Energy/Etc IS a vortex is science!! Roses and their genus are well understood and studied in many fields of science, but that does not make "Red Red Rose" theory a scientific theory!

Beyond this, this so-called 'Atomic Vortex Theory' has not had any scientific techniques or tools applied to it, its made no published predictions, provides no mathematical model, has no support. Nothing, nada. Its a series (and yes, I have been to the website) of sophistical metaphores noting that A 'is like' B.

regarding inflation theory and the big bang you wrote:
"But it is very difficult to explain, especially with mathematics alone, it needs a "model" that encompasses the basic and fundamental behavior of matter and space. "

First off, inflation is NOT the theory of the big bang. Inflation is the explation for a number of phenomena- a Scientific Theory if you will. Inflation serves as evidence for the 'Big Bang' hypoithesis.

And WRT Mathematics and what you call, in scare quotes, a 'model'- you are confused. Mathematics is how the model of a phenomenon is explained. You don't have the terminology correct, IMO.

"Mass is supposed to have a "field" called "gravity" associated with it, or perhaps the mass simply "warps" the space-time continuum so that mass falls into it."

This makes no sense. You are putting the words together in a way that isn't consistent with their meaning, or at least doesn't make sense.

"therefore the "gravitational field" must have been really extreme in the beginning of the universe, now, if that was the case, then how could the "mass" fly out of that field?
"

A question that has been dealt with by many flavors of hypothesies attemting to describe the big bang.

"
I have a "model" that is supported by mathematics, it explains much more than "why" the big bang could have occurred, it also explains other physics phenomenon too numerous to explain here.
Not only that, it describes the hypothesies in terms of logic and mathematics that:
1) Depends upon other accepted mathematical truths and
2) can have predictions derived from it and
3) Can be subjected to formal logical analysis
"


It is not supported by the mathematics describing Vortices, because it merely says mass/energy/etc 'is like' a vortex. If the properties of subatomic particles could be erived from some mathematical model of the vortex, then that would be something. If some fundamental, mathematically rigorous principle of the vortex could actually be extended to make predictions about the constants of the universe, then that would be something. If you could use a set of equations that describe the propertes of a vortex to also derive some properties of mass or energyu, or the electromagnetic force or [...] THEN you could talk about an "Atomic Vortex Theory" of mass/energy/whatever.

WRT your sub-point 1:

No, it does not depend on other mathematical truths, it depends upon metaphorical analysis. The points above explain this.

WRT your sub-pint 2:
No, no predictions have been made from this so-called 'atomic vortex theory'. None have been published for peer-review, no citations have been given on request.

WRT your sub-point 3
See all that I wrote above.

Unfortunately, that theorem

Its not a theorem, i suspect you don't know what that means and instead are referencing "theory". Its not really a theory in terms of science- a "Theory" in science is tantamount to the "Standard Model", a current working truth, tested by peer review and science, to which most of science ascribes until demonstrated false. the weakest and most 'Folk' sense of the word- a hypothesis attempting to explain some phenomenon.

"How can "new" ideas be presented to the close minded "scientific" community?
"

Submit a paper to a journal, any journal. If you think Science is somehow immune to revolution, then you have not been paying attention.

Now I have wasted some 30 minutes on this post. I doubt it has done any good, but ohwell.

DL