Kinetic Energy, Radii and Surface Areas

The theory presented on this blog has energy as size at the subatomic. Specifically, it states that all energies, regardless of form, are stored in the surface areas of subatomic particles.

This implies that any change in energy at the subatomic level requires a change in the size of these particles, and the reverse must also be true. A change in the size of a subatomic particle impacts its energy.

This can in turn be used to explain why the formula for kinetic energy is E_k = ½mv².

Motion and energy

To illustrate this, let's once more consider how straight line acceleration is induced into objects, according to our theory.

We have that linear motion is induced into particles by shifting their centers of balance in the direction of motion. This is done by inducing a lopsided change in their size, with one end of the particle growing more than the other.

Motion induced by a change in energy

In the illustration above, the light grey shading represents particles at rest, while the dark grey represents the extra energy, in the form of larger surface areas, required in order to generate accelerations towards the right.

The mechanism for this is outlined in the chapter on kinetics. However, for the purpose of this post we only need to realize that a shift in the center of balance requires a lopsided change in the size of particles.

How kinetic energy relates to velocity

From this, we get that the linear motion induced into a particle by a change in its center of balance is directly related to the change in the radius of said particle, and that this relationship is linear.

We also get that this same particle's change in energy is directly related to its change in surface area, but this is not a linear relationship. It's exponential. Hence, we get that E_k is related to v².

Kinetic energy and velocity are not the same

A lopsided change in radius yields two things. One is a change in energy and the other is a change in velocity. The two are not the same. Energy is stored as surface area of subatomic particles while velocity is merely a bi-product of a lopsided distribution.

While this doesn't fully explain the presence of the division by two present in the formula, it does give a reason for it. Hopefully, we'll find a more complete explanation for this before long. Any suggestions to why the division is exactly half will be received with thanks.

Explaining the full formula

At low speeds, the inertial mass m of accelerating particles can be considered to be constant even though there is a tiny change in the size of the particles involved. This is because the change in radius required in order to induce motion is miniscule. There's also no need to consider relativistic effects because these only kick in at very high speeds.

The only variables in the formula for kinetic energy are therefore E_k and v, and we end up with the equation : E_k = ½mv².

Conclusion

We have once again found compelling evidence for our position that energy is stored in the surface areas of subatomic particles. Not only have we been able to explain why the famous mass-energy equivalence formula is E = mc², we have also found an explanation for why the formula for kinetic energy is E_k = ½mv².

Plasmoids and Z-pinches

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

By NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) HubbleSite: gallery, release., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=102873

The Plasma Universe

The most abundant form of matter in the universe isn't solid, liquid or inert gas, but plasma. Yet few people have heard of it, and even fewer know what it is.

Defining plasma

The reason for this is that plasma isn't a state of matter, but a condition. All plasmas are gases with the additional quality that their electrons have been separated to some degree from their molecules. The overall charge of a plasma is zero, or close to zero. However, a large number of the molecules in the gas are missing an electron. They are ionized, with their electrons floating freely between molecules, or attached to other, negatively charged molecules.

The gas isn't charged, because that would imply an overall excess or deficiency in electrons. It's therefore wrong to say that a plasma is a charged gas. The correct description is that it is a charge-separated gas with an overall neutral charge balance.

The most common charge separation is one where electrons are separated from molecules, making molecules positive and electrons free floating. But a mix of positively and negatively charged molecules would also qualify as a plasma. The key is that charge is separated within the gas, making individual molecules positively or negatively charged, while the overall body of gas remains neutral.

Properties of plasma

Charge separation in gases can be achieved in multiple ways. Photon radiation, heat and electric fields all have the ability to tear electrons from molecules, so it's no wonder that the universe is full of this stuff.

The resulting plasma is an electric conductor with a remarkable ability to self-organize. All sorts of interesting patterns can be created with relative ease in a laboratory. Kristian Birkeland made several experiments at the University in Oslo, more than a hundred years ago, where he replicated Earth's Auroras, Saturn's rings, and features of the Sun, thus proving that all of these phenomena could be related to plasma currents.

Recently, we've seen the SAFIRE project make several experiments with their own terrella. As it turned out, one of their experiments proved to be rather prophetic, as can be seen in this video.

Wolf–Rayet star

A so called Wolf–Rayet star has been observed with ripple-like rings surrounding it, very similar to what was observed in the SAFIRE project.

This should come as no surprise because Wolf–Rayet stars exist in environments of highly ionized gases, i.e. plasma. The conditions surrounding such stars are identical in nature to those created in the plasma chamber used by the SAFIRE project.

Conclusion

It's well known that our universe is dominated by gases in their plasma state. It should therefore come as no surprise that stars and planets exhibit the self organizing properties that are known to take place in plasma currents. Yet, mainstream astronomers persist in their insistence that it is gravity, rather than plasma currents, that dominate the inner workings of the universe.

It's high time for a change.

Plasma lamp

By I, Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

The Electric Sun-Earth Connection

Earth has an electric connection to the Sun. We know this because Auroras at the poles of our planet are electric phenomena, and they flare up whenever there's a solar storm. The more intense the flaring, the more intense are the Auroras.

Electric winds and storms

The most spectacular case of this ever recorded was the so called Carrington Event of 1859. It resulted in fantastic Auroras, and a great deal of damage to telegraph lines as well as powerlines. The solar flare was clearly electrical in nature.

We have since learned that there's a steady stream of charged particles emitted by the Sun, mostly electrons and protons. Solar flares are in other words like storms in an otherwise stable environment.

Magnetic field reversals

The electric connection between our Sun and our planet is never broken. But it's not hardwired either. We know this because our Sun's magnetic field flips 180° every 11 years, and this type of reversal almost never happens on Earth. So, our planet's electric characteristics must be at least somewhat independent of our Sun.

Furthermore, the Sun's magnetic reversals indicate that it's under the influence of a alternating rather than direct current.

Birkeland currents

This leads us to the assumption that our Sun is externally powered by a Birkeland current. If our Sun's magnetic field reverts every 11 years, so must the Birkeland current. However, this is not a problem, because Birkeland currents do in fact encompass counterrotations and reversals.

Birkeland currents are made up of concentric tubes of electric plasma that oscillate at relatively steady frequencies. If our Sun is moving along such a current, periodic field reversals is exactly what we'd expect.

But how is it that our Sun's energy output remains pretty much unaffected by all of this? If our Sun is externally powered, it must mean that the current feeding it is steady as well. Yet, we have magnetic field reversals happening every 11 years with hardly any change to its output.

Z-pinch

The answer to this is that Birkeland currents are multilayered. The overall energy supply is therefore the sum of multiple layers of various current flows, and these layers are distributed in such a way that the energy transmitted by any cross section adds up to pretty much the same number no matter how you slice it.

The Sun forms a node in the Birkeland current, known as a z-pinch. So, multiple layers of the Birkeland current are pulled in towards our Sun. Each layer provides its own energy input, sometimes strong and sometimes weak. But taken together, the input is steady.

Turbulence and flaring

This means that there are times when our Sun is moving through its Birkeland current in regions where all the various layers of plasma sheets move in the same direction, and other times when the sheets are out of synch with each other. In the case of our Sun, the cycle is 11 years.

When the Birkeland current is in synch, our Sun is calm with little flaring and few sunspots. When the current is out of synch, there is more flaring and more sunspots.

The period of calm is also when our Sun's magnetic field is at its most distinct. It has a clear north-south axis. This is contrary to periods of flaring and turbulence, when our Sun has a chaotic magnetic field with no clear direction.

Solar cycles

All of this corresponds precisely to the so called solar cycles. In fact, it explains them perfectly.

Sunspots and flaring are at their most intense shortly after our Sun moves through a region of maximum turbulence in the Birkeland current. They are at a minimum shortly after our Sun passes through a region of minimum of turbulence.

Atmospheric inertia

The delay is due to atmospheric inertia. Just like summers here on Earth are at their hottest shortly after we have peak solar exposure, solar cycles are at their most intense shortly after the Sun passes through maximum turbulence in its Birkeland current.

Atmospheric inertia can also explain why there's no overall change in the Sun's rotation due to magnetic reversal.

Plasma sheets swapping sides

The Birkeland current doesn't have much inertia to it, so when there is a reversal in its overall motion, it deals with this through the way of least resistance. It doesn't oppose the inertially heavy rotation of our Sun. Rather, it reconnects in such a way that its contribution to the rotation remains the same.

The direction of the current reverts, but not its rotation. The positive and negative plasma sheets that come in through the north and south poles of our Sun swap sides, but with no other impact than a lot of turbulence during the swap. 

Climate impacts

Additionally, we have an explanation for why Earth's climate cools down during periods of little overall solar activity.

If our Sun is externally powered by a Birkeland current, it follows that the strength of this current will determine the strength of the Sun's output. So, when the Birkeland current is weaker than normal, our Sun should be less intense in both its radiation, and its turbulence and flaring.

By observing a drop in flaring and sunspot activity, we can infer a drop in energy input, and hence expect a drop in Earth's temperature.

Atmospheric inertia

There is a delay between the magnetic reversal and the maximum turbulence in the Sun's atmosphere. But this can be explained in terms of inertia. Just like there's a delay between the height of summer in terms of heat relative to the peak position of the Sun in the skies here on Earth, there's a delay between 

AC to DC conversion

But none of this explains why Earth's magnetic field remains unaffected by magnetic reversals of our Sun. However, this detail isn't difficult to explain in the light of what was stated earlier about the solar wind.

Our Sun is the central node of the Birkeland current that passes through our Solar system. It's the Sun that soaks up its energy. The planets that orbit our Sun is not directly affected. Rather, we are basking in the glow of our central star. There's a steady wind of electrons and ions sprayed out at us together with photon radiation.

Instead of being affected by an alternating current, we're receiving a direct current that doesn't revert every 11 years.

The Sun acts as a AC to DC converter for the planets.

Magnetic reversals for planets

But if our Sun provides its planets with a DC current, why then do we sometimes get magnetic reversals also on Earth? Here, we can only speculate, but one possible explanation could be a change in the overall makeup of the solar wind.

If the solar wind is predominantly made up of electrons during normal times, but sometimes changes to predominantly protons, or visa versa, we may experience a magnetic reversal for planets as a consequence.

Planetary Birkeland currents

The effect of an overall change in the makeup of the solar wind would be similar to the effect of a reversal for the Sun.

This is because the auroral current entering planets are of the same kind as the current driving our Sun. They too are Birkeland currents with multiple layers and counter rotations.

The inertia inherent in planetary rotation will similarly dictate that the overall rotation remains the same. So, the only significant change to the planets becomes a reversal of the poles, preceded by significant atmospheric and magnetic turbulence.

However, there may be internal mechanisms driving some of this as well, as suggested in this paper.

Conclusion

Observed facts are consistent with an electric model of our galaxy, our Sun and its planets. However, the precise makeup of the electric circuit is far from straight forward. There are multiple factors playing a part, and I'm not pretending to have all the answers.

By David Hathaway, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml, Public Domain, Link

Hannes Alfvén's Galactic Circuit

Hannes Alfvén, who won the Nobel Price in physics in 1970, proposed in his time an electric model of galaxies. According to this model, there should be an electric current drawn in at the plane of galaxies, and pushed out through the poles at their central axis.

Much of the current pushed out at the poles goes back down to the plane, where it reenters the galaxy, thereby forming what he termed a galactic circuit. Positive ions are drawn in through the plane, and pushed out at the poles. Electrons and negative ions go the other way.

Recent confirmation

While this was viewed as rather speculative back in his days, recent mappings of magnetic fields in and around our galaxy proves him right. The magnetic structures observed are indicative of a large current moving precisely as predicted by Alfvén.

This means that every galaxy in the universe forms an electric node with Alfvén's characteristics.

Pearls on a string

From other observations, we know that galaxies tend to line up like pearls on a string. This indicates that they are connected, presumably by a plasma current that drives the entire system.

But every node must necessarily leak some energy into space, so we are again faced with the need to conjure up an energy supply. My theory is that every star is a contributor to the galactic current, so it is the stars in the galaxies that supply the energy to compensate for leakage. Every galaxy is a giant electric accelerator. They are the amplifiers of galactic currents.

By Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/new-structure.html, Public Domain, Link

How Gravity Differs from the Electrostatic Force

The electrostatic force and gravity have a number of differences that seem to indicate that these forces must be largely unrelated. However, on closer inspection we find that these differences are fully accounted for in a model where gravity is due to an imbalance in the electrostatic force.

Surface phenomenon vs universal phenomenon

The electrostatic force is always calculated from the surface of objects. This is because this phenomenon is due to an excess or deficiency in electric charge. Electrons stick to certain materials, and they can be rubbed off from other materials.

This happens exclusively on the surface of these materials. Hence, the need to calculate this force from the surface of materials rather than their center.

Gravity on the other hand, if due to an imbalance in the electrostatic force, must be calculated from the center of bodies. This is because an imbalance of this sort is additive. Every atom has this imbalance, so every atom has to be accounted for.

Newton's shell theorem proves that this must be so.

Dependent vs independent of material types

The electrostatic force acts differently on different types of materials. The chemical and physical properties of materials take part in determining the strength of this force.

This is due to the need for charge imbalances in order for this force to work. Materials that resist charge imbalances are therefore less affected by this force than other materials.

However, an imbalance in the electrostatic force will exist regardless of material types. If gravity is due to such an imbalance, all materials will attract each other.

It doesn't matter if a material resists charge imbalances, because the addition or subtraction of electrons has nothing to do with the inherent imbalance that exists in all materials. All that matters is the total number of electrons and protons involved.

Shielding vs no shielding

The electrostatic force induces charge imbalances on the surface of materials. This serves in turn as shields of various qualities. However, there's no way to shield a universal imbalance, because such imbalances are additive. It doesn't depend on the type of materials used.

Any gravity "consumed" by a concrete floor will be matched by gravity "produced" by the same floor. So, the floor doesn't take away any gravity from us as we sit upstairs, and this goes for any floor regardless of material used.

Conclusion

Gravity, if due to an imbalance in the electrostatic force, will result in a universally attracting force that acts from the center of objects, independent of material types. So, there's no reason to dismiss this idea simply because the electrostatic force acts differently.

Gravity vs the electrostatic force

Magnetic Field Strengths of Planets

The conventional view of planetary magnetic fields is that they are the result of liquid metallic currents that move like dynamos deep inside the cores of planets.

The liquid metallic currents are driven by internal mechanisms that can only be inferred from their resulting magnetic fields.

Predictive vs non-predictive theories

This is an example of a non-predictive theory where only invisible and hypothetical inferences are possible. Nothing visible or directly measurable can be inferred. The truth of the theory cannot be determined. It rests fully on trust in the original hypothesis.

In contrast we have the theory supported in my book where we can infer planetary magnetic fields by observing the atmospheres, wind speeds and rotation speeds of planets.

The thickness and the overall rotational speed of a planet's atmosphere tells us roughly how strong the planet's magnetic field is. Our theory is therefore predictive and testable. All we need to do in order to give an estimate of a planet's magnetic field is to observe its visible characteristics.

Hollow or liquid core

We know from measurements on Earth that planetary magnetic fields appear to come from deep down. However, this doesn't mean that this must be the source of it. It merely means that our planet needs to have a fluid core capable of generating a magnetic field in harmony with external forces applied to it from the above atmosphere.

The core can be a metallic liquid, or it can be a plasma filled hollow. As long as it is something that responds harmonically to external magnetic inputs, we're fine.

Plasma currents

The central idea in our theory is that the magnetic fields of planets are created by charged gases in motion, aka plasma currents. Since it's well established that all atmospheres are charged, especially at high altitudes, we can say that all planets with an atmosphere have plasma currents moving around them.

The jet stream and Earth's magnetic field

High altitude winds are visible example of plasma currents. We cannot see the charges moving about, but we know that they are there, and we know that they generate magnetic fields when they move.

The plasma currents are in turn driven externally by the Birkeland currents that also produce the auroras at the poles. Everything is in the end connected to the Sun and the plasma current that drives the entire solar system.

Testing our theory

With this in mind, we can go on to match observations with facts to see if we can indeed predict a planet's magnetic field strength by simple observations:

• Mercury has no atmosphere, and presumably a small and inactive hollow. This explains why Mercury has a very weak magnetic field.
• Venus has a thick atmosphere that moves at high speeds. But the planet is rotating very slowly, so there's little contribution to the overall speed form the planet itself. The slow rotational speed of Venus is also an indication of little to no contribution from any internal atmosphere or liquid metallic core. This explains why Venus has a weak magnetic field despite its thick atmosphere and strong winds.
• Earth rotates a good deal faster than Venus, and it has a jet stream and an active internal current. This explains why Earth has the strongest magnetic field in the inner solar system.
• Mars is similar to Mercury, but less extreme. It has a thin atmosphere and probably a slightly larger hollow. This explains why Mars has a magnetic field that's stronger than Mercury's but weaker than Earth's.
• Jupiter is spinning very fast on its axis, and it has a thick atmosphere. Its large and diffuse core is likely to be very active. It's therefore no surprise to learn that Jupiter has the strongest magnetic field of all planets in the solar system.
• Saturn is similar to Jupiter, but with a thinner atmosphere and slower spin. Its magnetic field comes in as the second strongest in the solar system.
• Uranus has more than two poles, indicating that there's a mismatch between the internal plasma current and the external current. The strength of its magnetic fields are less than Saturn.
• Neptune is similar to Uranus, and has for this reason magnetic fields similar to it.

Conclusion

The plasma model for planetary magnetic fields can be used to make predictions related to the strength of magnetic fields. This is unlike the dynamo hypothesis which can only be used retrospectively. The dynamo can only be inferred from measurements of the magnetic field. It cannot be used to predict anything, and is therefore useless as a predictive model.

The fact that the plasma model gives us correct predictions based on observations of atmospheres, wind speeds and rotation speeds of planets, makes it the better model in terms of usefulness.