Once we accept the fact that we live in a plasma universe, we soon come to realize that self-organizing structures such as plasmoids and z-pinches can explain a great number of astronomic observations. For one, we can explain galaxies without any need to invoke dark matter, dark energies or black holes.
Plasmoids
A plasmoid is a coherent self contained structure of plasma that typically takes on the form of a torus. An internally generated magnetic field holds it together, and keeps it from collapsing into a ball.
The magnetic field is generated by plasma currents inside the torus which in turn contain the plasma and perpetuate the current. Hence, we end up with a self contained structure that will persist for some time even after its energy input is shut off.
Galaxies as plasmoids
Laboratory experiments involving plasmoids reveal structures that look a lot like galaxies, and it has therefore been speculated that galaxies are in fact plasmoids.
Initial thoughts in this direction proposed gravity as the driving force behind the galactic current required to keep the plasmoid from collapsing.
A black hole is often imagined at the center of galaxies. However, the existence of intergalactic currents makes the need for a gravity driven input redundant because intergalactic currents will naturally produce z-pinches that are just as strong as black holes.
Z-pinches
A z-pinch is a plasma phenomenon that serves to compress a plasma. This can be achieved in a laboratory by running currents in parallel, or through magnetic manipulation.
From the look of it, galaxies appear wherever there's a z-pinch in the intergalactic current. Hence, we have good reasons to believe that what is presumed to be black holes are in fact z-pinches.
Since the effect of a z-pinch is to pull plasma together, there's no need for a strong gravitational force at the center of galaxies in order to explain their shape. Z-pinches will do just fine.
Black holes vs z-pinches
Unlike z-pinches, no-one has ever produced a black hole in a lab. The concept of a black hole is wholly theoretical.
Black holes were conceptualized from a feature in Einstein's equations where densities and temperatures go towards infinity at certain threshold values. They are in other words the result of bad math, where values are allowed to be divided by zero. But this hasn't stopped astronomers from believing in their existence. Rather, the opposite is the case. Astronomers now claim to see black holes just about everywhere in the universe.
But what's really observed is plasma. There's no controversy related to that, because black holes can only be inferred from the radiation emitted from their surrounding plasma. The black holes themselves are not directly observed. What's observed is plasma in a torus shape.
This is of course exactly what a plasmoid would look like in space. Yet, astronomers refuse to give up on the idea of black holes even though z-pinches will suffice to produce the observed inward pressure.
Observation and theory
Plasma physics is based on observation and replication in laboratories. In plasma physics, theory springs from observation. This is in contrast to astrophysics where theory is primary, and observations only serve to confirm what has been deduced.
When observations conflict with theory, astrophysics will add whatever is needed in order to keep their theory alive. This is how dark matter and dark energies have come into mainstream astrophysics.
In contrast, plasma physicists are quick to give up on ideas that conflict with observations. If something hasn't been confirmed in a laboratory, theories are but speculations with little weight to them. There's no point in hammering through an idea that cannot be reproduced in a lab.
Of the two approaches, plasma physicists got things right. There's no point in going into details regarding theory that hasn't been readily confirmed. Ideas should be sketched out quickly and freely and quickly put to rest if not reproduceable in a lab. No-one should get too attached to a theory, and that includes the theory's author.
Developing theory
The theory of everything presented on this website was conceived and developed in a series of rapid iterations, and this is in my opinion the best way to produce good results.
I had the idea that everything in the universe might be explained with particles bouncing into each other to produce force and hooking up with each other to produce structures.
I tested this idea against a wide range of phenomena to see if it had any merit, and I was of course delighted to find that it held up to this initial scrutiny.
This first iteration took no more than a few weeks to complete, so I wouldn't have found it intolerably painful to abandon the idea had I come across unsolvable problems.
The second iteration served to shore up a number of loose ends. Then, there was a third iteration and a fourth iteration that resulted in the two books available on this website.
This has been followed by several refinements and a great number of blog posts.
Every iteration has taught me something new. I've found new insights, which is the whole purpose of writing theory. So, even if I should come across some insurmountable problem related to my theory, I would not have worked in vain. In fact, my experience would have value for others in their own search for a theory.
I would be more than happy to point out the pitfalls I fell into so that others can make progress without stumbling into them themselves.
Specialization
This is in contrast to how science is approached in academia these days. Instead of going for an overall view, academics tend to specialize early. Years of studies are invested in narrow fields, and this results in a reluctance to consider alternative views. Hence, we get the situation where black holes are preferred over plasmoids and z-pinches despite serious problems with black holes, both in theory and observation.
Conclusion
Science is in its essence nothing other than structured curiosity. It's not a place for closed minds. Hence, theory should never be taken too seriously. Alternatives should always be considered. At the very least, there should be a curiosity related to any alternative view of the particular field of expertise that a scientist is involved in.
However, career science isn't very open to alternative views. Rather, it's heavy on career and light on science.
Future breakthroughs in theoretical physics will therefore come from the fringes, and from the amateurs that think freely and unhindered by dogma.
 |
| Plasma jet ejected by a galaxy |
No comments:
Post a Comment