robmog

Yes a great idea Steve, but who's going to organise and monitor it?

I think the energy of vorticles is kinetic (as is all energy according to Steadybang Theory) and doesn't have a source but has always existed in varying forms. Unless you are a Creationist or Big Bang supporter, this is the only sensible viewpoint you can take. Personally, I think the Big Bang will become a damp squib in the next 5 to 10 years, as more and more holes are found in the theory (See the 'Big Bang Disproved' page on the Steadybang website for some good arguments against it)! As regards life-force, according to vorticle theory, all bodies, whether inert or alive, extend beyond their physical boundaries.Their flux envelopes extend indefinitely, but are not normally detected unless reinforced by combining with others. Aligning the vorticles of one or more bodies gives rise to electromagnetic phenomena where bodies can influence each other at a distance. I imagine that there is a certain amount of vorticular alignment in living organisms which causes their flux envelopes to be detected and have influence outside their physical boundaries. The word 'aura' springs to mind. There is a meditation technique developed by a chap called Roy Masters back in the sixties which enables you to experience this 'aura'. It involves visualising the back of your hand being joined to your forehead by elastic so that it is drawn up slowly to touch your head. In effect you feel your forehead before you actually touch it physically and get the weird feeling of your hand sinking into your brain. If you go to his website at http://www.fhu.com/meditation_begin.html you can download the meditation and try it - it does have some philosophical overtones which you may or not like. I hope this is of some help in your quest, Questor.

I have some ideas about this, Questor, but need to clarify them - will get back to you in a few days. Cheers.

I think the main basis for the interaction of vorticles is the First Postulate which states: A system of vorticles will interact to increase the stability of the whole system which means minimising its total energy. So when you create a collision between two relatively stable vorticles, you're putting kinetic energy into the system which is dissipated by producing less stable vorticles. These then eventually break down or combine to form stable vorts (abbrev. of vorticle) again and in so doing emit energy in some form. For example a neutron will split into an electron and a proton and emit a gamma ray. I'm glad you mentioned superstrings. It shows that conventional physics is at last getting away from hard shell-like particles and moving towards a more vorticular subatomic model! Vorticles can expand indefinitely until they react with other vorts (Third Postulate). So they can seem bigger in less dense environments. This sometimes makes it difficult to locate small ones like electrons, whose position and size will seem to vary according to the method of detection. In fact electrons can interact with themselves (the dirty little buggers) as in the double slit experiment, where one electron can pass through both slits. Keep questing, Questor.

As I understand it, Questor, space is not full of vorticle entities, but only of the flux envelopes of nearby planets and stars. The interaction of these is what tends to keep them apart, in contrast to the expansion process which closes the gap between nearby bodies of matter. The combination of the two gives rise to the various orbiting and spiralling motions of celestial bodies. Secondly, the remnants of vorticle collisions don't exist for long if they are unstable. They either break down into more stable vorticles or combine with others to form these more stabler forms, which are basically electrons, protons and atoms (no other atomic or subatomic forms exist for longer than a few seconds). Then they stay close to the body of matter they are part of , unless ejected by some explosive force. Hope this answers your queries - keep questioning!

Thanks for your interest, Questor. I hope I understand the theory well enough to answer your questions. 1. Yes. 2. I don't know, but if you have a concentrated explosion of energy, it usually takes a vorticular form e.g. in tornados or a nuclear bomb. The reason for this is that spinning things are more stable than non-spinning and stability or its increase seems to be the cornerstone of the theory. 3. Yes, except for anti-vorticles (equivalent to antiparticles in conventional physics) but they , if they form, soon come into contact with normal vorticles and are eliminated. 4. To understand electricity you need to know the form of the basic atomic vorticles. The electron is a simple open spiral and the atom (and neutron and protron when its broken down that much) is an open spiral torus like a mollusc shell or ammonite so the outer rim of it is an open spiral, which are the electrons of course. It spins the opposite way to how it radiates. If the atom is electrically neutral, these motions are canceled out, so there is no overall turning-motion. If we remove part of this outer spiral, which is made up of electrons, the atom will have a rotation away from it's outer radiation and towards the origin of the torus spiral. This will destabilise the atom and 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 and form a more stable bond. 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. 5. When vorticles collide several things can happen. If the collision is violent they can break up into smaller vorticles, as in a cyclotron collider. If they are relatively unstable and together they form a more stable body e.g. in ionic bonds, they can combine. If they are relatively stable they will just bounce off one another, like smoke rings or any air vortices can do. I probably haven't explained this too well. To get a fuller/clearer explanation, your best bet is to go to the Steadybang website - http://www.steadybang.com - and look at the chapter on Vorticles. It lays down six postulates that define how they interact and there is an illustration of an open spiral torus.

I found your treatise on orbiting motion "Additions to the Final Theory" interesting, Beagleworth, but I think it illustrates the difficulty some Expansion theories have in explaining this branch of physics. By using the concept of compressed or warped space to account for the 'bending' motion of planets you are, by your own admission, borrowing from General Relativity. This seems to make expansion theory unnecessary at least for explaining planetary motion, as it's the bending motion that actually defines orbits. I gather from some of your remarks that the FT subatomic model is based on particles, as in conventional physics. This could be the problem. Steadybang theory (referred to in my post 290 above), by contrast, has a vorticular concept of atoms. It considers matter to be a form of electromagnetic radiation like light but spinning as it radiates to form vortices. This spinning motion is why energy is more concentrated in matter than in light and why it expands slower. Time is just the state of this expansion. So it follows light must have a constant velocity. The vortices (or 'vorticles' to distinguish them from 'particles') expand until their flux comes up against that of other vorticles. Then they either repel each other or combine to form a larger vorticle. Whichever: on a larger scale, a body of them e.g. a planet, has a flux envelope extending way beyond it that interacts with other bodies and then, in the same way as on the atomic level, repels and/or combines to form an orbiting system. Unfortunately the theory doesn't have a mathematical explanation of this, at least not on the website. The beauty of this theory, though, is that the subatomic model allows it to explain, as well as gravity, the other fundamental forces in purely kinetic terms - electromagnetics by aligning atomic vorticles and the weak/strong forces by increases in vorticular stability.

Thanks for the welcome ____Steve. I should have done my homework and read all the previous posts, but I'm a lazy b_____r. However I'll make the time now and try not to duplicate ideas in the future. :rolleyes: Cheers Robmog

I've come to this discussion a bit late and feel like a gatecrasher at a slightly wacky but intriguing party. Although I've haven't read the 'Final Theory', I'm an advocate of Expansion Theory and there are several versions of it out there in cyberland that you can access without having to buy a book. One of them (Steadybang Theory) has a mathematical explanation for how a steady exponential expansion of matter creates the illusion of a small body accelerating towards a larger body when near its surface. I could reproduce it here if you like, but it's just as easy for you to go there - http://www.steadybang.com - and click on the 'Gravity - the Maths' page. It also points out that a test of the theory (not very practical at the moment) would be to drive a tunnel through a small celestial body say an asteroid (or maybe a shaft through a large space station, would do) and then drop something down it. Conventional physics would have the object oscilating across the centre of the shaft before coming to rest there, whereas in Expansion Theory it would come to rest at the centre without any occillation - this would be pretty conclusive I think. Hope this explains the 'acceleration' problem. Another way of looking at it is that as two bodies expand they get closer together because of the expansion, but because the scale of everything is increasing, the measurement of this distance is also reducing giving the illusion of an acceration. Robmog