<![CDATA[<body>
<p align="center"><font color="#000000" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steadybang
Theory - a Kinetic All-embracing Model of Everything Omnipresent (KAMEO)</strong></font><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><br>
</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>
</strong></font><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Introduction</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 sphere travelling rapidly around the sun. <br>
The theory implies that the universe is exploding, but uniformly, so to us it
appears in a steady state - hence the name Steadybang.<br>
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.<br>
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 one-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.<br>
Enough philosophising - let’s get back to the physics!</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>The Five Axioms that define KAMEO are:-</strong></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>1</strong>)
Everything in the Universe is made up of pockets of radiating energy, which
take the form of expanding disturbances in the electro-magnetic flux.<br>
<strong>2</strong>) There are two types of radiation<br>
<strong>a</strong>)Direct (i.e. non-rotational) radiation, known conventionally
as electro-magnetic radiation or e.m.r. and<br>
<strong>b</strong>)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.<br>
<strong>3</strong>)The interaction of these different types of radiation and
their different forms accounts for all observable phenomena.<br>
<strong>4</strong>)Time is just the state of this energy radiation - so all
time exists, but on different scales of dimension.<br>
<strong>5</strong>)As energy-radiation actually defines time, then the rates
of expansion of both types of radiation must be uniform. Because of this:-<br>
</font><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>a</strong>)The
speed of light is constant for a given medium and for all observers.<br>
<strong>b</strong>)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
hers weight when resting on it.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong>Vorticles - what form do they take and how do they react with each other
and e.m.r.</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 probable examples of open spiral tori. The speculation for this
comes from observing that explosions and implosions of energy/matter create
spinning vortices e.g. the atom bomb 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.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The
Six Postulates</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong>1</strong>.Stability is the name of the game - a system of vorticles
will interact to increase the total stability of the system. 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 might split into two or
more stable ones . These would, conventionally, be seen to repel each other
e.g. as in the weak interaction. (This would seem to imply that time is one-directional
- not necessarily! - see FAQs below.)<br>
<strong>2</strong>. One form of instability is where the vort 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 turnimg motion, creates a stabler vorticle and accounts
for the attraction between them.<br>
<strong>3</strong>.Anti-dissection Concept. Unlike particles, when vorts 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 form
of the resulting offspring may not have been present in the orignal.<br>
<strong>4</strong>.Vorticles normally interact on the microscopic scale, but
their influence ranges 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
effecting the movements of celestial bodies.<br>
<strong>5</strong>.This brings us to the distances at which vorticles intereact.
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
and velocities. 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 observe very small bodies like electrons.<br>
<strong>6</strong>.When charged (see 2 above) vorticles change direction or
accelerate they generate e.m.r.. If this becomes an oscillation, then a wave
will be propagated. Conversely, if e.m.r. comes across vorticles of the right
size, it will cause them to vibrate and thus be absorbed by them.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>The Four Fundamental Forces as derived from KAMEO</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>1</strong>.
The Weak Interaction is a product of the first Postulate above i.e. it happens
when a body is unstable and breaks up into more stable parts.<br>
<strong>2</strong>. The Strong Force is also an example of the first P., but
here two relatively unstable vorticles come together, because the resulting
body is more stable.<br>
<strong>3</strong>. Electromagnetism derives from a combination of the second
and fourth postulates. Charged bodies are spinning vorticles and act like minature
gyroscopes. When they move through a magnetic or electric field, which is basically
an aligned super-vort, they are subjected to torques which cause them to move
according to Flemings LHR. This accounts for the motor and dynamo effects of
electromagnetism in purely kinetic terms.<br>
<strong>4</strong>. 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 4). </font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's
the Theory - now let's see how KAMEO works in practice at the three levels of
dimension commonly explored scientifically - Atomic, Terrestial and Cosmic:-</font></p>
<p> <font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>A. KAMEO at Atomic Level</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 (postulate 1) 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
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.<br>
As suggested before, the probable shape of the atom vorticle is an open spiral
torus or helix, like a mollusc shell, but with tighter coils. 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 electrical
or magnetic fields. Adding to the outer spiral, by adding electrons, will have
the opposite effect, giving it negative tendencies. 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 outmost 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.<br>
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 - another example of the first postulate. 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 in the open-spiral-torus
form. The smallest and 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. 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.<br>
Presumably if you smash vorticles together violently enough and often enough
in something like a cyclotron, you'll get, eventually, whatever size and form
of vort you want. Hence the proliferation of particles in modern physics.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>B. KAMEO at terrestial level</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Electro-magnetism.<br>
As suggested in A (KAMEO at atomic level) atoms are open spiral tori, the outer
coils of which are open-spiral vorticles - conventionally electrons. This makes
them all minature magnets. In some metals they can be made to align. This, applying
Postulate 4, creates a super-vort with the same form as the atom but on a much
larger scale - in other words - a normal sized magnet. Similarly, if electrons
can be persuaded to travel down a conductor they will create a magnified moving
super-vort in the form of an electron. If the conductor is then coiled the resulting
super-vort again becomes a magnet. No surprise here - this agrees with conventional
physics. The difference is that, in this model, the conventional magnet lines
are replaced by an open spiral torus and the turning of this torus explains
the effect magnets have on other magnets and charged bodies.<br>
When vorticles have an overall spin, they act kinetically like gyroscopes and
this will govern the path they'll take in a magnetic or electrical field. As
suggested by postulate 4, such fields are made up of groups of vorticles working
in unison. These super vorts will exert a torque on the charged vorticle and
as a spinning body it will turn according to Flemming's LHR (which is applied
slightly differently here). This will be seen as a bend in it's path, when travelling
free of a solid, or as a torque on the solid it's travelling through, as with
the e.m. motor effect on a current-carrying wire. The rules governing the movements
of gyroscopes and electric coils, although covering very different branches
of physics, are very similar, even using the same thumb and fingers of the hand
to illustrate the directions of the different spins.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gravity.<br>
On a terrestial level, as with the atomic, everything sticks together because
it's made up of chunks of radiating matter (vorticles) and on the surface of
the earth this manifests itself as the force of gravity. It creates the impression
that bodies above the surface accelerate towards it if allowed to fall. As pointed
out in the introduction (page 1), really the surface is coming up to meet the
free body. This explains why a person standing in a falling lift has no sense
of acceleration; but standing on the ground, we can feel ourselves being pushed
upwards steadily. This would seem to suggest that matter-radiation is accelerating
- but this is an illusion! In fact the apparent acceleration of falling bodies
is a result of two factors. Firstly, as matter expands the scale of physical
dimensions increases with it. So the distance between two motionless (with respect
to each other) bodies decreases, not only because they are expanding towards
each other, but also because this distance is being measured on an increasingly
larger scale (as Alice found when she took the 'growth' pills and everything
appeared smaller to her!). Secondly, the changing nature of 'time' itself. As,
with the physical dimensions, the scale of time also dilates. So a body moving
with a constant velocity, continues to. But two bodies moving with the same
velocity (or motionless with respect to each other, as above) appear to converge
and with an acceleration. This is due to the dimensions of acceleration - namely
length divided by time-squared - thus the distance between the bodies is being
shorten at an ever increasing rate. When the bodies are roughly the same size,
however, their envelope fluxs increasing repel each other as they get closer
together - postulate 4 - and this apparent accelerating convergence is virtually
cancelled out. But, in the case we are considering here i. e. terrestial gravity,
a small body near the surface of the earth is already well within the envelope-flux
of the earth and not greatly repelled by it and thus appears to accelerate until
it hits something solid - usually the earth's surface.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>C. KAMEO at cosmic level</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most
cosmological phenomena is explained conventionally using the force of gravity.
In terrestial KAMEO we showed how the latter was 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 4). Postulate 1 also has a bearing on how celestial bodies,
which are in fact only large vorticles, interreact. When they come together,
either in pairs or en masse, their combined super-vort will tend to turn or
spin and in many cases this will form a stable configuration, e.g. spiral galaxies,
solar systems, etc..</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Big
Bang and Black Holes (the Emperor's jacket and trousers)</strong> </font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These
two ideas, derived from erroneous initial assumptions, have sporned a whole
galaxy of scientific theory!<br>
Big Bang Theory comes from the assumption that the red-shift of much-travelled
light radiation is caused by it's sources moving away rapidly and the further-travelled
it is the greater the red-shift. Well there's a much simpler explanation. The
red-shift is a symptom of optical jet-lag. The further light travels through
space the more it comes close to larger and larger amounts of matter. In conventional
physics the gravity of this matter will bend the light beam effecting it's velocity
and wavelength. In Steadybang the super-vorts around it will have the same effect.<br>
The existance of Black Holes is assumed to explain why some stars appear to
be circling apparently empty space as if it were a heavy body, usually near
the centres of galaxies. This is explained in Steadybang as the action of a
super-vort spinning around an evolving centre. </font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong>Steadybang Theory - a summing up.</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
main aspect of the theory, which distinguish it from conventional physics, is
that matter radiates like e.m.r., but, being a more concentrated type of energy,
takes on the form of spinning vortices (referred to here as 'vorticles' to distinguish
them from 'particles'), thus making its expansion slower than light, but accounting
for the phenomenon of gravity in purely kinetic terms. The idea of matter taking
a vorticular form has been suggested several times before in the history of
physics, notably by Lord Kelvin in the mid-nineteenth century, who experimented
with smoke rings and showed how they could be made to bounce-off each other.
There are also some web-sites e.g. ? which currently promulgate the idea. But
the idea that everything is expanding has probably not been suggested before
- it's pretty wacky - and to think that everything in the universe is doubling
in size every twenty minutes takes some accepting - but then is that any crazier
than Big Bang theory where the whole universe starts off the size of a nut.
At least with Steadybang there's no 'singularity' - continuum reigns, if you
like that sort of thing! Neil Bohr once commented on a paper which had just
been presented by Pauli. 'We are all agreed that what you are saying is crazy.
The point that divides us is whether or not it is sufficiently crazy to have
a chance of being correct.' Well by that criteria, this theory must be correct.
Nethertheless, I shall publish under a pseudonym until I find anyone sane that
takes it seriously.</font></p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Battybat.</font></p>
<p><font size="-1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Philosophical
Postscript - LIVING/DYING = SURFING/SINKING.</strong></font><br>
</p>
</body>]]>