Steadybang

Welcome to

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. Its 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.

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 the smallest stable unit 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 light (or e.m.r.).

The Six Postulates that define how Vorticles interact.

1. The Stability Rule.
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. 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.

3. Large-scale Combinations.
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 electromagnetic disturbances or flux will extend vast distances affecting the movements of celestial bodies.

4. Inter-vorticle Repulsion.
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 mass, velocity 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.

5. Electric Charge.
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, can cancel out some or all of the turning motion, creating a stabler vorticle and this accounts for the attraction between them. When the outer part of the vorticle is radiating at the same rate as it is turning in the opposite direction so there is no overall rotation, it is then termed neutral.

6. Light (e.m.r.) Generation.
When charged (see 5 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 third, fourth and fifth postulates. The fifth 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 3) in the form of an atom, their spin distorts the flux density (postulate 4) locally and accounts for the diverse interactions 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 4).

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:-

A. KAMEO at Atomic Level

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 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.
As suggested before, the probable shape of the atom vorticle is an open spiral torus or helix, like a mollusc shell (as illustrated - right), 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 overall 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.
The other property of charged vorticles is that when they move, and they tend to, being more mobile than neutral ones, the positive ones turn one way in relation to the direction of movement and the negative turn the opposite way. It is this spin (used in its literal sense here rather than as in conventional physics or 'con-phys' for short) that causes the characteristic behaviour of charged vorts in a magnetic field (see Terrestial KAMEO for a fuller explanation). This explains why anti-matter, which is the mirror image of normal matter with the vorticles spiralling out the opposite way, always appears to have the opposite sign to it's normal equivalent (when charged of course). So the positron turns the opposite way to the electron and acts as if it were positive in magnetic fields. Luckily antimatter doesn't exist for long as it is soon annihilated when coming in contact with its regular form.
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 - see above. 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.
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' discovered in con-phys.

B. KAMEO at terrestial level

Electro-magnetics.

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 electromagnets. In some metals they can be made to align. This, applying Postulate 3, 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 con-phys. The difference is that, in this model, the conventional magnet lines are replaced by the open-spiral-torus model and the turning of this torus explains the effect magnets have on other magnets and charged bodies. In the absence of our own graphics at this point in time (they're in the pipeline), we can use the conventional model to illustrate how this works, thus:
As mentioned in Atomic KAMEO, electrons in normal matter spin one way along their direction of movement and positrons, their anti-matter equivalent, spin the opposite way. Either way would have been successful in producing a universe like the one we live in, but, because normal matter and its anti-matter equivalent annihilate each other, they can't exist together. For some reason, maybe chance, the electron and its ilk triumphed over the positron and its kind. Presently we don't know which way the electron turns, but either way would work, so we'll choose anti-clockwise in the direction of movement for the following reason. The conventional magnetic lines (north to south) will now indicate the direction of movement of the vorticular flux around the electrons as they move down a wire or as part of a magnetic torus (bearing in mind that electrons move in the opposite direction to a conventional current) and textbook diagrams that illustrate how magnetic fields interact can be used to show how KAMEO's (moving) vorticular-flux systems affect each other. Conventionally when two or more electromagnetic systems come close to each other, their magnetic fields will either conflict or reinforce each other causing localised variations of field strength. This creates forces on the conductors or magnets involved according to Fleming's rules. In KAMEO, a similar interaction of vortical-fluxes will produce local variations in the flux density and create a flux-gradient around the elements involved that then accounts for their subsequent movements kinetically.

Electrostatics

Flux density and gradient are also important concepts in understanding Electrostatics. As stated in Atomic KAMEO, the electron, being the outer part of atoms, can be easily removed by friction in some materials and, if these are non-conductors, they will stay where they end up. This will produce a higher flux-density in this region (negative charge) and a lower density (positive charge) where they came from, thus creating a flux gradient between the two - a sort of pressure difference and also a form of instability. An independent positively-charged body, introduced into the system, will gravitate towards the negative or high density area to reduce the instability (postulate 1) and a negatively-charged one will move toward the positive area. A possible flaw in the theory is pointed out in Loosends 2.

Gravity.

On a terrestial level, as with the atomic, everything sticks together because it's made up of chunks of expanding 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, 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 also an illusion! In fact the apparent acceleration of falling bodies is a result of two factors. 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!). For a mathematical explanation of this - see "Gravity - the Maths". 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.

C. KAMEO at cosmic level

Most cosmological phenomena are 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). 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. Examples of stable super-vorts, on a cosmic scale, are solar systems and spiral galaxies.

Light and Time (time is not a dimension - see links).

It may be difficult to see how the wavelength of light (or e.m.r.) remains constant in an expanding frame of reference. This can be explained by the mechanism of its generation and absorbtion and the nature of time itself. Light is emitted as a series of regular pulses and time is just the state of progression of this radiation, not another dimension in the expanding physical frame. So when the radiation is absorbed, its frequency is the same as when it started, but it's wavelength has increased in line with the expanding frame of reference. This is because "wavelength" is not so much a property of light itself, but rather it manifests itself as the magnitude of the oscillation it produces in the absorbing matter, which in turn is dependant on the interval between pulses or its frequency.

Big Bang and Black Holes (the Emperor's jacket and trousers).

These two ideas, derived from erroneous initial assumptions, have spawned whole galaxies of scientific theory and fantasy!
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. The much simpler explanation is that red-shift is just a symptom of optical jet-lag. After all, wouldn't it be even more amazing if light could travel through space for billions of years without changing its form in some way. Zwicky first suggested this with his Tired Light Theory but it was calculated that gravitational red-shift from the many stars that light passes on its way here would not be enough to account for it. Of course in Steadybang Theory everything's expanding anyway, but this doesn't necessarily produce a red-shift! - see 'Light and Time' above. However in Steadybang the flux-envelopes of all the celestial bodies extend till they meet each other, so the whole of space is filled with flux of various density - a sort of turbulent, expanding aether! It may be that this has an accumulating effect on the pulses of emr travelling through it and this causes the shift. Or it just might be that, in travelling so far, the timing of the pulses gets slightly out of synch and, as mentioned above, they succumb to a form of optical jet-lag. See also - Big Bang Disproved.
Black Holes and Dark Matter (and now Dark Energy) are ideas invented to explain flaws in modern gravitational theory. Specifically, why some stars appear to be circling apparently empty space as if it were a heavy body, usually near the centres of galaxies and how the motion of stars in some galaxies can only be explained by the addition of some invisible mass. Of course in Steadybang the mechanism of gravity is a completely different concept. Galaxies are mega super-vorts made up of many stars spinning around an evolving centre. Presently we don't have the maths to prove if this is so, but hopefully.....one day? - see Loosends 3 below.

Loose Ends (and Tying Them In).

No, this isn't a reference to String Theory - though it's good to know that particle physics is easing away from little bullets to something more fluid - vortices even? No, this is about the parts of Steadybang Theory that don't tie in, as yet. It, pretty obviously, aspires to be a TOE (Theory Of Everything), but, because it's scope is so broad, it must have many loose ends. Some of them are listed below. If anyone would like to draw our attention to any more, feel free to press the contact button and let us know. Significant ones will be posted on these pages. Even better, if you can tie in any of the loose ends, your efforts will be acknowledged here!

1. At Atomic Level, the main "loosend" is the failure of the theory to explain the size of the gaps in the periodic table between the inert gases. You would expect some sort of geometric progression as the atom vorticles get larger. In fact it is a stepped progression:- 2,8,8,18,18,..etc., which suggests the atom consists of two tori maybe wrapped around each other or possibly the original torus spirals on itself again, as suggested in "Vorticles" above. Neither is completely convincing.

2. At Terrestial Level, KAMEO doesn't completely explain Electrostatic phenomena. An excess of electrons on a negatively-charged body would account for it repelling a similarly charged body (both having an increased flux-density) and for it attracting a positively-charged body, which has a dearth of electrons and a low flux-density, but it doesn't explain why the latter should repel another positively-charged body, when both have a low flux-density.

3. At Cosmic level, it should be possible to derive mathematically the paths of orbiting bodies - planets and sattelites - from the basic premises of KAMEO (in this respect, the maths of con-phys' gravitationall theory has such a simplistic beauty to it). However, so far, no such luck! The difficulty is that our gravity depends on two interactions (the expansion of matter and interaction of the bodies flux-envelopes) and these are hard to combine mathematically. Moreover nobody has, as yet, tackled a maths with expanding frames of reference as far as we know - a challenge to some budding genius out there!

Predictions

It's difficult to come up with original predictions for an all-embracing theory like this, because it attempts to explain all observable phenomenon and to find unique illustrations of the theory, that will demonstrate its viability, is difficult. However we have a few, but it might not be possible to test them out until either space exploration has advanced or sub-atomic particle-detection has improved.

At the Terrestial level, Gravity is our best bet. If we take the example of the ball dropping down a shaft in the Earth surface (used in 'Gravity - the Maths') and extend it by driving the shaft right through the centre of the Earth to the other side, what would happen to the dropped ball? Con-phys would expect it to accelerate through the centre and travel almost to the opposite surface, before rebounding almost to the place it was dropped and then continuing to oscillate around the centre with ever decreasing magnitude. Steadybang Theory, on the other hand, would expect the ball to slow down as it approached the centre and then take an infinite time to reach the exact centre (though for all intents and purposes it would appear to be there fairly quickly). This obviously isn't a practical experiment with a body the size of the Earth, but might be possible on a smaller scale with an asteroid or large, heavy space station.

At Atomic level, the suggestion made at the end of the Atomic KAMEO section might produce a prediction i.e. that if you smash vorticles together enough times you can eventually produce whichever type of 'particle' you want - if only for a split second. So, if you invent a hyperthetical particle with made up properties of mass, charge, spin etc., it would eventually show up in a particle collider's detection chamber.

At Cosmic level predictions are hard to make. The comments made in Cosmic KAMEO about Black Holes and the Big Bang give some possibilities. For instance the reason that matter appears to be drawn into Black Holes, according to Steadybang Theory, is because they are vacuums rather then dense centres of matter and the circulation of the stars around them, making up a spinning mega-super-vort, keeps them that way. But, of course, this would be difficult to prove without actually going there or sending a probe. Disproving Big Bang in favour of Steadybang maybe a more promising possibility (see also Big Bang Disproved!). When we look at stars many light years away, because the light takes so long to get to us, we are looking at earlier states of the Big Bang (if it happened) when the stars should be closer together than they are now. So if Big Bang is correct, the further we probe into space, the more likely we are to see a slowing down of the B.B. effect. So far this hasn't happened, in fact the opposite effect is reported with the furthest stars appearing to accelerate away from us. Steadybang would expect this effect to continue however far away we are able to detect stars, but, of course, it explains it in a different way (see Cosmic KAMEO). Also con-phys will continue to fail to detect 'dark matter' or 'dark energy', as these are just fudges invented to explain inconsistences in BB theory.

Steadybang Theory - a summing up.

The main aspect of the theory, which distinguish it from con-phys, 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 - see links - 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 nuttier than Big Bang theory where the whole universe starts off the size of, appropriately, 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, it will be published under a pseudonym until anyone sane takes it seriously.

Battybat.(contact)

2004 Update:The above was written in 2003. Before publishing, this writer thought it best to check the Web to see if anyone else had come up with the expanding-matter idea to explain gravity. Amazingly there were 2 or 3 sites that had similar ideas - see Links - though none have a vorticular model of matter. It was quite a shock for him, as he had thought the idea was original. (Also the expression 'vorticle' was being used to describe matter in vorticular form - another originality-balloon punctured.) But then he thought - well, if other people can think of it too, maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all! Every spiral nebula has its supernova!

2005 Update: There is now a commonly used term for this explanation of gravity - 'Expansion Theory'.
The reader may have got the impression, from the numerous references to 'con-phys' in this treatise, that the author has no confidence in modern physics. On the contrary, he has a great regard for the vast majority of it - just witness the amazing technological advances of the last century - but at the extremes of scale, both micro and macroscopic, where theory can't be tested by experiment, it has lost its way and wandered into the realms of fantasy and science fiction. Just examine some of the wilder hypothesis to emerge from academia recently:- alternative universes, dozens even scores of extra dimensions, the big bang initiated by a computer program (is this science worshipping at the pearly Gates of Microsoft heaven?), dark matter and energy, a variable speed of light, expanding space....... The list goes on. You just know there must be a flaw in con-phys' basic model of the universe for such fantasies to even surface. Maybe a completely different approach is needed and, hopefully, Steadybang Theory provides this, though it is doubtful whether it could be accepted by the scientific establishment for quite some time.

2006 Update: One good thing about these wacky inventions of con-phys is that they tend to undermine people's faith in the physics establishment and may allow more radical theories like Steadybang to become more acceptable. Also, at either end of the scale-spectrum, con-phys is getting closer to KAMEO. At atomic level, string theory has usurped the old particle concept of matter in favour of a more vorticular (vortex-like) approach and cosmologists who favour the Big Bang model, now believe in expanding space. It now just needs a small jump of faith to combine these two ideas and you have the basic premise of Steadybang i.e. that matter is made up of expanding vortices (vorticles). There's not much separating the two physics!

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.

First published: 7 December 2004.
Updated: Sept/Oct 2005.
Reason: to clarify the 'Six Postulates' and include the page 'Big Bang Disproved'.
Last update: Feb 2006.
Reason: to add '2006 Update' to the Summing-up paragraph.

This page's WebCounter has clocked you as visitor number: