Steadybang Theory

[battybat]

I've been working on a TOE for several years now and have just published it on the net. Below is an extract from it, setting out its basic premises and the five axioms that define it. If you wish to read more about it and see how it explains the four fundamental forces (and other phenomena) in purely kinetic terms, please visit the website at: www.steadybang.com. Thank you.

STEADYBANG THEORY
- a Kinetic All-embracing Model of Everything Omnipresent (KAMEO)

Introduction

This is an attempt (somewhat half-baked, because of its scope) at producing a purely kinetic explanation for all the phenomena in the universe, without resort to mysterious forces or remote fields of influence. It’s core idea, which distinguishes it from current scientific models, is that matter is a type of electro-magnetic radiation like light, but because it is a much more concentrated form of energy it radiates in spiraling vortices. The many different types of particles of matter are, in fact, just varieties of electro-magnetic vortex, henceforth known as vorticles. The way these vorticles inter-react, as they expand, with other vorticles and with normal straight-forward e.m.r. accounts for all known observed phenomena, at least the theory will attempt to show that. This means, of course, that everything is expanding, including ourselves. This is hard for us to accept or visualize, but then because most things are expanding at the same rate the change is not noticeable to us. A few centuries ago it would have been hard for us to accept that the earth was not stationary and flat, but, in fact, a spinning sphere travelling rapidly around the sun.
The theory implies that the universe is exploding, but uniformly, so to us it appears in a steady state - hence the name Steadybang.
This idea of radiating matter, immediately gives us novel insights into two aspects of reality hitherto only vaguely explained - terrestrial gravity and time. Instead of unsupported bodies falling to earth, think of them as floating in space and the earth expanding out to meet them. Then its no surprise that, whatever their weight or density, if they are released at the same distance from the surface and at the same time, they impact simultaneously. Similarly with time, if we think of matter as growing in layers, like the skins of an onion or the rings of a tree, we can visualize all time existing together, but on different planes and in different scales. In fact, the radiation of matter (and light) is the progress of time itself, that’s why the speed of light in a vacuum must be constant.
Viewing this universe, objectively, we can see that “radiation”, “growth”, “progress” are concepts created by the human consciousness and are not necessary to make KAMEO work. They also suggest that time is uni-directional. It seems human consciousness needs this illusion for it’s existence and this makes sense, since, after all, it is a product of “evolving”! Since we are attempting to communicate with other consciousnesses we will continue to use such expressions. It is difficult enough trying to visualise a total-time-existing universe - talking about the dynamics of it, without using such expressions, is virtually impossible.

Enough philosophising - let’s get back to the physics!

The Five Axioms that define KAMEO are:-

1) Everything in the Universe is made up of pockets of radiating energy, which take the form of expanding disturbances in the electro-magnetic flux.
2) There are two types of radiation
a)Direct (i.e. non-rotational) radiation, known conventionally as electro-magnetic radiation or e.m.r. and
b)Vorticular radiation (manifested as matter) where the energy, being more concentrated, takes a rotational form - spinning or whirling - and thus expands at a slower rate.
3)The interaction of these different types of radiation and their different forms accounts for all observable phenomena.
4)Time is just the state of this energy radiation - so all time exists, but on different scales of dimension.
5)As energy-radiation actually defines time, then the rates of expansion of both types of radiation must be uniform. Because of this:-
a)The speed of light is constant for a given medium and for all observers.
b)The expansion of matter is undetectable to an observer who is part of the uniform radiation, except through experiencing the effects of gravity, either through falling towards a larger body or feeling his or her weight when resting on it.

Vorticles - what form do they take and how do they react with each other and e.m.r.

[cristian]

Expansion theories such as this describe gravity as an illusion generated by the fact that two objects will come closer as their size increases. But they generally fail to explain the very basic phenomenon of planets revolving around stars.

This type of theory is ok for explaining two objects getting closer (expanding) until they collide. But how about two objects getting closer, moving past each other, moving futher away from each other, slowing down and then changing direction?

[battybat]

In this theory, the phenomenon of gravity is a combination of two properties of matter - its expansion through radiating, which brings bodies together, and the interaction of their vorticular flux envelopes that tends to keep them apart. When two bodies come close together, one of three things can happen. Their closing velocity is too great for the fluxes to hold them apart and they collide, or the mutual flux density is enough to hold them apart and they go their own separate ways (but with altered trajectories) or, in exceptional cases when conditions are just right, the two flux envelopes will combine and form a larger stable vorticular envelope with the two bodies orbiting each other. What decides whether vorticles (bodies of matter) stay together or fly apart is whether the overal stability of the system is increased or not - postulate 1 in the theory.
I hope this answers your question.
Battybat.

P.S. In case you haven't visited the Steadybang website, it explains what vorticles are and how they interact.

[battybat]

Further to my previous message, as nobody's commented on the answer I gave to Cristian, either it makes perfect sense or, more likely, it's bamboozled everyone! In an effort to clarify the point I was trying to make, here's another extract from the Steadybang website setting out what form vorticles (the building blocks of matter) take and how they interact with other vorticles and e.m.r.. These rules of engagement or postulates are included in the extract below and may or may not be complete - your comments are welcome.


Vorticles are equivalent to elementary particles and so take many forms. As they are radiating pockets of concentrated energy, they most likely take the shape of an expanding open spiral, which is spinning as it opens. An electron probably takes this form, as it is one of the smallest units we know of. With denser bodies the open spiral most likely spirals on itself to form an open spiral torus and with even heavier ones the torus could spiral on itself again. Neutrons, protons and atoms are examples of open spiral tori (see illustration). The speculation for this comes from observing that explosions and implosions of energy/matter create spinning vortices e.g. the atom bomb, tornados or on a less violent and smaller scale, bathwater escaping down the plughole. This is because, all things being equal, spinning things have more stability than non-spinning. (This is a revolutionary theory in more than one sense of the word!) The torus idea comes from examining how electro-magnets fit into the KAMEO model (see "KAMEO at terrestial level” below). But first we attempt to postulate the rules of engagement for vorticles (sometimes shortened to 'vort' when qualified) and emr.

The Six Postulates that define how Vorticles interreact.

1.Stability is the name of the game - a system of vorticles will interact to increase the total stability of the system (or minimise the total energy). So if two relatively unstable vorticles come into proximity and, together, they make a more stable vorticle, they will combine. Conventionally this would be interpreted as an attraction between two bodies. The strong force that holds nuclei together is an example of this. Conversely an unstable vorticle may split into two or more stable ones . These would, conventionally, be seen to repel each other e.g. as in the weak interaction.
2. One form of instability is where the vorticle has an overall turning motion. Conventionally this is known as an electric charge. When the turn is in the same direction as the radiating spiral it is termed negative (e.g. an electron) and when against - positive. Joining up the two different types, cancels out the turning motion, creates a stabler vorticle and accounts for the attraction between them.
3.Anti-dissection Concept. Unlike particles, when vorticles combine, or become part of a larger vorticle, they merge together and may be unrecognisable from their original form. Similarly, when splitting up a vorticle, the forms of the resulting offspring may not have been present in the orignal.
4.Vorticles can extend in size indefinitely until they interact with other vorticles (in special circumstances, they can interact with themselves, as electrons do in the 'double-slit' experiment). Normally this interaction will happen on the microscopic scale, but their influence can often range much further. For instance, if a group of them are aligned, they can form a super or granddaddy-vort which operates at terrestrial levels. Magnetism and electricity are examples of this. Even if they don’t align, the combined envelope of their e.m. disturbances will extend vast distances affecting the movements of celestial bodies.
5.This brings us to the mechanism of this vorticle interaction and the distance at which it takes place. There must be a critical combined flux-density at which vorticles, whatever their size, start to repel each other, assuming they’re stable enough not to want to combine, and how they then react depends on their relative masses, velocities and spin. Because of this, the size and position of a body will vary according to how it is detected. This may account for the problems encountered when trying to locate very small bodies like electrons.
6.When charged (see 2 above) vorticles change direction or accelerate they generate a pulse of e.m.r.. If this becomes an oscillation, then a wave will be generated. Conversely, if e.m.r. comes across charged vorticles with the appropriate freedom of movement, it will cause them to vibrate and thus be absorbed by them. Because of its small size and greater mobility, the electron is the vorticle usually involved in generating and absorbing e.m.r..

Hopefully, this defines the model KAMEO accurately enough that it can explain the phenomena of the universe in purely kinetic terms - starting with the Four Fundamental Forces.


The Four Fundamental "Forces" as derived from KAMEO

As KAMEO attempts to explain all phenomena kinetically, it's not really accurate to refer to these fundamental effects as "forces" - "interactions" is a more appropriate expression.

1. The Weak Interaction is a product of the first Postulate above i.e. it happens when an atom is too large to remain stable and breaks up into more stable parts.
2. The Strong Interaction is also an example of the first P., but here two or more relatively unstable vorticles i. e. protons and neutrons stick together, because the resulting nucleus is more stable.
3. Electromagnetic phenomena derives from a combination of the second, fourth and fifth postulates. The Second explains why charged bodies attract or repel each other i.e. to increase the stability of the system, and also how they have an overall turning motion.This latter property gives them the tendency to move in the direction of the axis of spin, the negative ones spinning one way and the positive ones the opposite way ('spin' is used in its literal sense here, not as it is used conventionally in particle physics). When they travel through a magnetic field, which is basically an aligned super-vort (postulate 4) in the form of an atom, their spin distorts the flux density (postulate 5) locally and accounts for the diverse intereactions of electricity and magnetism in purely kinetic terms. (See Terrestial KAMEO for a fuller explanation).
4. The phenomenon of Gravity is a combination of two aspects of matter - its expansion through radiating (Axiom 2b), which tends to bring bodies together, and the interaction of their flux-envelopes which holds them apart (Postulate 5).

That's the Theory - if you wish to see how KAMEO works in practice at the three levels of dimension commonly explored scientifically - Atomic, Terrestial and Cosmic please visit the website at: www.steadybang.com .

Battybat

[Marketa]

B., have you heard about superstring theory? Your theory vagualy (very vagualy) reminds me ST.
But there are several mistakes in your theory: WHERE do you think, the atoms, etc. grow? And - more important - FROM WHAT do they grow? If something - space, time, anything, grows, then you need more energy.
If you object that somehow there is no need for additional energy in your theory, then the theory is nonsense from its base - because you NEED energy to FEEL e.g. gravitation, so you would need additional energy for EVERY growing object. But, again, this is nonsense, because energy is something developed by people, physicist, it's a very subtle thing that appears/disappears during interactions. So it can't be "hidden" in a "growing". That leads to paradox: you can't grow without energy but the growing can't contain energy... SOME paradoxes are highly interesting, but some are nonsense, and I'm afraid it's this case.

[battybat]

Hi Marketa
Thanks for your comments - I'll try to answer them.

The key idea of this theory is that matter is a form of electromagnetic radiation like light, but that, because it is more concentrated, it radiates in spiraling vortices (or vorticles), which makes its propagate slower than light (and other e.m.r.s). As you know, once light is generated (which does need energy) it continues to propagate without any further addition of energy until it is absorbed by matter (and gives up its initial generation-energy). In the same way, once matter is created, it can continue to expand or radiate without any influx of energy. During interactions with other vorticles or parcels of matter, it can lose or gain kinetic energy, it may combine with them and become part of a larger vorticle or it might break down into smaller vorticles, but it can still exist without the addition of energy. Small amounts of matter are lost in nuclear reactions but this is converted into a large amount of heat energy and is analogous to light giving up its generation-energy when it is absorbed.
No, you don't need energy for matter to expand, if that's its nature - just look at light - but you do need it to create matter and that's a whole different ballgame - we're into philosophy now! Probably its always been there. But if you're going to ask where it all comes from, you'd have to ask the same of Super String theory.
I hope that answers your question.

Battybat.

[Marketa]

Hello Battybat!
I admit that there appears a sense in your words, but I still have one small question, maybe the smallest in the world: What do you think makes your theory better than Superstring Theory? And why should some vorticles be slower than others? I mean, what is "the concentration" and how is this connected to "spinning", "growing" and "moving"? If you answer that it's energy, then there must be some rules when it changes into spinning, when into growing, etc...
???
Marketa

[battybat]

Thanks for the accolade, Marketa! - to make some sense to you is praise indeed.
I don't know that much about SST, but it's good to see conventional physics moving away from the bullet/particle concept and accepting that matter is made up of something more fluid, like - vortices, maybe? Will they also realise that smashing these things together in colliders enough times will produce eventually any type of 'particle' that you want to find. But if these only exist for a fraction of a nanosecond, is that relevant? It certainly seems to have been a cornerstone of particle physics up until now.
I didn't exactly understand your question about vorticles. In KAMEO (the model for Steadybang theory) vorticles spiral outwards (some as simple open spirals like electrons and the larger ones as open spiral tori e.g. protons, neutrons etc.) and they grow at roughly the same rate. 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.

Hope this makes even more sense.

Battybat.

[Marketa]

I would have a plenty of questions about KAMEO, but I think that it will be much better for both of us if you would read the excellent book The Elegant Universe by Grian Greene. It's really well written and explains much of SST, including special effects near/in black holes etc. You would be surprised how much this "new physics" is different from the physics of particles, it's really elegant theory and I'm sure that if you don't leave your theory, you'll certainly find new views, new thoughts...

[battybat]

Thanks for the recommended reading, Marketa, I'll see if I can find it in the library, though I might not have time to read it.

In Steadybang Theory we're attempting to pioneer a new approach to physics and I'm not sure if there's any value in comparing it to the conventional sort ('con-phys' for short). The latter has done mankind very well for over a century but mostly on the terrestial scale and mostly in the electromagnetic field. When it has applied itself to very big or very small things, it has gradually become more and more bizarre, trying to explain phenomena that doesn't fit into its view of the universe. The Big Bang was invented to explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies, when it could be just a form of optical jet-la.; Black Holes and Dark Matter are ideas to account for the movement of stars around an empty centre (of a galaxy, say), when there doesn't seem to be enough mass to cause this circulation. Now, these mystical creations are accepted as fact, even though there's no concrete evidence for their existence. Particle Physics has also got it self into a mess dividing up matter into smaller and smaller bits and trying to organise these into symetrical groups. Just add ideas such as 'alternative universes' and 'multiple extra dimensions' and you know con-phys is becoming science fantasy.
No, physics needs completely fresh approach and Steadybang is an attempt at doing that. It's only in its embryonic stage at the moment and needs a lot of R&D, but at least it's a start. Any comments or criticisms will be a welcome contribution to this.

Battybat