[Marketa]

OK. Make time for reading that book, it's mesmerizing.
I'll have a look at your theory and will criticize it as much as I'll be able, I swear).

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by battybat Of course, if you add energy in the form of heat, for example, the vorticles become more active kinetically (well everything's 'kinetic' in KAMEO anyway) and tend to expand. If you remove energy, they will contract. I think this is consistent with reality.

If we worm up the water (i.e. add the energy in the form of heat) it will turn into gaseous state and will strive up from the surface of the earth. If the water looses the energy in the form of heat, it condenses, i.e. takes solid (or liquid) form and strives to the surface of the earth.
In the first case the water experiences expansion, in the second - contraction. We can see clearly that the water in state of contraction is striving to the center of the earth, but in form of expansion from the center of the earth to opposite direction (To say metaphorically - to the sky, or rather to adjecent space of the earth).
Briefly we can say that the center of the earth is the “place” with favorable conditions for striving of solid matter, but the sky – the “place” with favorable conditions for striving of expanded matter.
So, we can name the center of the earth as
- Place of attraction of contraction;
But the sky as
- Place of attraction of expansion;
Can we conclude that?
- The moon as well has its own place of attraction of contraction and this is the center of the moon;
- The moon has its own place of attraction of expansion and probably this is a space adjacent to the moon;
- The difference between the earth and the moon from point of view of attraction is that they attract the solid matter placed between them to opposite directions (to their own centers) and they push expanded matter placed near their surfaces to opposite directions as well (from their own centers);
So, the likely difference between the space, which’s adjacent to the earth and the space, which’s adjacent to the moon is in directions:
I. The first begins from the center of the earth and spreads to all directions.
II. The second begins from the center of the moon and spreads to all directions as well.
In the area of contact of gravitational fields of the earth and the moon these adjacent spaces have opposite directions to each other;
But we can’t detect any apparent bounds, any difference between the spaces of the earth and of the moon, we believe that the space among all planets is homogenous and it has no directions, and the assertion about their opposite directions looks like nonsense.

My main question is:
- are expansion and contraction qualities of matter only or 3-D space experiences heterogeneity as well? I.e. does it have direction? Or does it expand when adding the energy to it in form of heat? Or does it contract when depriving the energy in form of heat? Does the space itself consist of vorticles? Or it’s only a “place” to which vorticles with high energy strive, and from which the vorticles with low energy strive? Or is space homogenous and indifferent to both these processes?

[battybat]

Hi Zeroca

I think I was a bit misleading in your quote of me, when I said that removing energy would contract vorticles. I should have said that removing energy would cause vorticles to expand slower. In Steadybang Theory everything is expanding/radiating all the time, but exchanges of energy will cause variations of this.

Yes, vorticles expand in size until they interact with others, then they can combine to form larger ones and so on until, on a cosmic level, they fill the whole of space (postulate 4). This is what keeps planets, stars and galaxies apart, unless they're on a collision course (postulate 5).

For a fuller description of vorticles and how they interact, see earlier in this thread.

Battybat.

[dleviwing]

I am amazed at the number of entities that exist in our universe or in the cosmos. We seem to have energy, four forces, matter, space that warps, gobs of particles, dark matter, antimatter, positive matter, negative matter, neutral matter, several dimensions, and even time is an entity.

There is a philosophical phrase I was told to follow when giving scientific or technical presentations to our management. "If you can't convince them with facts, dazzle them with bull s$*@".

The TOE theory or concept should not be dazzling.

This is only my opinion and may not be shared by other members. J
dleviwing

[battybat]

Originally Posted by dleviwing There is a philosophical phrase I was told to follow when giving scientific or technical presentations to our management. "If you can't convince them with facts, dazzle them with bull s$*@".

Yes, I agree, dleviwing, there's a lot of 'dazzling' going on in some of the postings - we call it 'blinding with science' over here.

In Steadybang Theory, I think you'll agree, we've tried to keep explanations non-complicated and the terminology simple. The only unusual term we've used is 'vorticle' to distinguish our vorticular model of matter from the 'particle' concept of conventional physics.

The other thing about theorising, I always think, is that you should be able to visualise what's going on in the theory. If you can't do that, there's probably a flaw in it. As Steadybang Theory relies purely on kinetic energy to explain all phenomena, you can readily do this. The footnote to the website (www.steadybang.com) quoted below illustrates this more fully.

Philosophical Footnote - LIVING/DYING = SURFING/SINKING. The beauty of Steadybang is that you can visualise everything that's happening in the Universe, from the little vortic(l)es, representing sub-atomic particles, radiating out to create the effect of gravity, sometimes aligning to form electromagnetic fields (super vorts), which then influence other spinning (when charged) vorts and accounting for electric and magnetic effects; then on to larger planetary-sized vorts that join up to form rotating solar systems, always radiating as they spin, though, to preserve that illusion of gravitational attraction; they in turn join up in spiral galaxies and so on and on ad infinitum. Not only can you visualise what's happening, but also what's happened and what will happen - it's all there like the rings of a tree - all time exists, but in layers of radiation.
Although we can visualise all time existing, it's hard for our consciousness to accept this. It clings to the illusion of time passing and only in one direction. It must do this for a reason and presummably that reason is survival. Without that mindset our organisms could not have evolved to their present complexity and I guess we should be grateful for that.
Instead of visualising all-time-existing, it may be helpful, from a philisophical point of view, to think of living as a form of surfing - surfing the vorticles or the radiating vorticular waves - quite an uplifting idea, especially if you like to play on the waves. The down side is that we all eventually fall off these vorts and sink. Sinking is, of course, dying and, put in this context, seems very final. But it may be that our fickle consciousness, which all through our lives plays tricks with time, has one more trick up its sleeve. In the same way that our consciousness creates many illusions to help us survive - time passing in one direction, we've just mentioned, the solidness of matter is another - when it feels its survival as an organism threatened it does the one thing that will give it a chance. It slows down time. A drowning man sees his whole life flash before his eyes and by trawling his memory banks he might just find a past experience that will help him escape from his desperate situation. Enough have, for us to know this! Anyone, in a life-threatening situation, has experienced this to a certain degree. Now take this to its logical conclusion. It could be that at the point of death, time stops for the dying consciousness and the last split-second of life takes an eternity! The brain is locked in a loop endlessly reliving its life. For someone with many regrets, this could be 'hell'! For someone with a clear conscience, it could be very pleasant - "heaven" even. It certainly would make it worthwhile, clearing out the conscience every so often, just in case of an untimely end. There's something to be said for the many religions that aspire to carry out this service for their converts, though they justify it in different ways. The Tibetan and Egyptian Books of the Dead were probably, in fact, LIFE-manuals with this purpose in mind.

Battybat

[battybat]

When I was posting stuff on Guille's thread the other day I realised that, although I'd set down the basic ideas defining Steadybang Theory, I hadn't explained very well how they worked at atomic level and in particular how the vortices that make up an atom can account for electrical charges kinetically. To put that right, here is an edited extract from the website.

The probable shape of the atom vorticle is an open spiral torus or helix, like a mollusc shell or ammonite. If the atom is electrically neutral, the central torus spiral turns away from the direction that the outer spiral is radiating outwards towards, so there is no overal turning-motion. If we remove part of this outer spiral, which is made up of the simplest type of vorticle - namely electrons, the atom will have a rotation away from it's outer radiation and towards the origin of the torus spiral. This will make it positive electrically and give it a tendency to move and be deflected by electric or magnetic fields. Adding to the outer spiral, by adding electrons, will have the opposite effect, giving it negative tendencies and opposite movements in electromagnetic fields. Ionic bonds occur when negative and positively charged atoms join together to cancel out this turning motion. Of course the electron itself being a simple open spiral will be negative and, due to being the outermost manifestation of the atom, it can be relatively easily removed by friction. In non-conducting materials this results in the phenomenon of electrostatics, but in conductors the electrons can easily return to the charged atom and neutralise it.
Atoms are the most stable self-contained vorticles at atomic scale and they come in a large range of sizes. The different sizes vary periodically in stability as they increase in size, but in general the larger ones are less stable. Most gain stability by linking up with other atoms, either of similar kind or compatible others, that they may come into contact with, but a few sizes are stable enough to resist such liasons and stand alone. These are called the inert or noble gases. The linking of atoms can either be at the outer-emerging vortices, one to one or one to several (ionic bonds) or by stacking (covalent bonds) or by a combination of the two. The results are called molecules and can be simple (just two of the same size atoms) or extremely complex, as with large organic compounds.
A few of the larger atoms are unstable enough to break down spontaneously into smaller vorticles. They make up the radioactive elements and the process is named the weak interaction. Usually, though, atoms have to be bombarded with other atoms or vorts to break up and a lot of energy has to be used to disrupt their innate stability. When this happens, other semi-stable vorticles are detected, usually of the open-spiral-torus form. The most stable of these is the proton, which being positive turns in on itself. Another of similar size, but neutral, is the neutron. This is much less stable, however, and rapidly splits into a proton, electron and gamma ray (a type of e.m.r.). Interestingly, the proton and electron exist stably together in the Hydrogen atom, but at a lower energy level. Kinetically, this must mean that the vorticle is less tightly spun and thus the electron part of it less likely to be thrown off.

Battybat

[dleviwing]

Battybat;
Sorry, your concept is far too dazzling for me.
Reality is simple and the answer is not in those philosophy, religious, or metaphysics books. If you can separate the BS from current mainstream physics, you will find the cause and effect for all existence and all physical reality.
The answer is out there; do you really want to KNOW???

Best regards;
Dave

[battybat]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Battybat; Sorry, your concept is far too dazzling for me. Reality is simple and the answer is not in those philosophy, religious, or metaphysics books. If you can separate the BS from current mainstream physics, you will find the cause and effect for all existence and all physical reality. The answer is out there; do you really want to KNOW??? Best regards; Dave

I feel a case of 'deja vu' coming over me - see post 14 above. Take post 15 as my answer (yes, I'm a lazy b.....d).

Battybat.