Fertility Rates in Argentina

Fertility rates have been going down all over the world, and I've speculated that this is due to socialist policies, because socialism leads us into thinking that someone else's children will take care of us when we grow old. We're told to pay taxes now so that we'll be well provided for in the future. Having children becomes in this way more expensive relative to our net income, and those who trust in the government figure they can skip the extra cost of having children and rely on the promised pensions instead.

If this is true, Argentina should see increased fertility rates pretty soon due to its dismantling of the welfare state. We have a test case for our hypothesis.

Fertility rates in Argentina

Why we don't have to worry about rising sea levels

Introduction

This winter is, according to the UN's own data, the fifth winter running with snow and ice accumulating on the northern hemisphere.

Snow and Ice accumulation 2024 to 2025

We're more than one standard deviation above normal compared to winters from 1998 to 2011.

Increase in glaciation

It's also clear from the above graph that the snow and ice accumulated during the winter of 2023 to 2024 did not melt away through the summer, because the red line starts above zero. The northern hemisphere is in other words seeing an increase in ice cover.

Looking at the winter of 2023 to 2024 we see that it too started out with glaciation.

Snow and Ice accumulation 2023 to 2024

So, if this winter follows this trend, we will see further glaciation into next year.

Greenland is accumulating ice

From this, it's also clear that Greenland cannot possibly be shedding its icecap, because Greenland has by far the thickest ice cover on the northern hemisphere. If it was melting away at anywhere near the pace reported in mainstream media, it would show up as deglaciation on the above two graphs, which is the opposite of what we're seeing.

This is of particular interest to us because there's absolutely no chance of the South Pole loosing any significant amount of ice. Any melting down there happens out at sea, which doesn't affect sea levels, or at the outer fringes of its landmass, which amounts to very little of Antarctica's total ice cover.

Antarctica is too cold for deglaciation

The bulk of Antarctica's ice is located in areas that never see temperatures above freezing. Even if temperatures were to rise well above what they are today, Antarctica will remain unaffected. It may even accumulate more ice due to increased precipitation.

Greenland, on the other hand, is located at a latitude that would see deglaciation if it wasn't for a cold ocean current coming down from the North Pole, which keeps the area colder than what it would otherwise be.

A change in ocean currents would cause Greenland's ice to melt. However, that would be at the expense of Scandinavia, which would see its climate go from unusually mild, considering its location, to unusually cold.

As far as climate goes, Greenland and Scandinavia can swap places, but they cannot both become significantly warmer at the same time. A small temperature increase is all we can reasonably expect to see for both these regions at the same time.

Worst case scenario

This means that any rise in sea levels would have to come from Greenland. But that icesheet isn't going to melt very fast. It will take centuries, if not millennia to melt it all, and the resulting sea rise will be no more than 7.4 meters.

So, if we for argument's sake suppose that it will take 740 years to melt all of the ice on Greenland, we'll get a 10 millimeter sea rise per year, which translates to one meter per century.

However, there is at the moment no deglaciation going on. In fact, there's more ice on the northern hemisphere today than there was fifteen years ago, so a ten millimeter sea rise per year is an absolute worst case, at least for this coming century.

Conclusion

Considering that there's no deglaciation going on at the moment, and that even a worst case scenario limits sea rise to one meter per century, there's no reason for anyone to panic about rising sea levels.

A modest investment in dikes and water management infrastructure is all that's required in order to fully protect ourselves for at least a century into the future.

Atlantis, the Igloo Effect, and Mass Extinctions

Introduction

The legend of Atlantis is an enduring myth that may have more truth to it than is generally believed, because its existence would go a long way in explaining how ancient building techniques and religious symbols all over the world are as similar as they are.

Places as far separated as Peru, Mexico, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and Cambodia, all have ancient building structures that are remarkably similar. They also have gods carrying handbags and displaying other symbols that are virtually identical in all these places.

At the very least, these places must have been connected by a network of trade and cooperation.

Not a new idea

The illustration below shows us that this is not a new idea. People have been speculating about Atlantis for a long time, and this particular map is a good example of this. However, it contains some glaring errors.

If Atlantis existed some twelve thousand years ago, Scandinavia would have been under a thick layer of ice, and so would the northern parts of North America.

On the other hand, East Asia should have been included. If not as a part of the Atlantis empire, then at least as an important cultural and economic connection.

Position and extent of Atlantis and its empire, postulated by Ignatius L. Donnelly in 1882

By Ignatius Donnelly; cropped by Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC) - This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3b36915.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons: Licensing for more information., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11626443

Remarkable accuracy

However, what's remarkable about this map is not its errors and omissions, but the fact that the island of Atlantis is drawn in at a location that would in fact have been dry land at the time of Atlantis' supposed existence.

The author of the map could not have known this for sure because the map was drawn before our ocean floors were mapped out. At most, he was aware of the Acores, which are today found in the region. But the landmass is drawn into the map, not because of the Acores, but because this is where Plato in his time said that the island was located. That's more than two thousand years ago.

Atlantis

Strategic location

If a dominant civilization existed at the end of the great ice age, we can hardly imagine a better location for its center.

The island of Atlantis was large enough to sustain a civilization, it was near impossible to invade due to its surrounding seas, and its central position on the map would have made it a perfect spring board for imperial expansion. So, it's clear that this part of the legend has merit. But could the island really have sunk into the ocean in as little as a night and a day, as claimed by Plato?

More than an earthquake?

While it's possible to imagine an island the size of England sinking into the ocean due to an earthquake, evidence suggests that this didn't happen, because if it did, the reconstructed map should show no land at the location of Atlantis.

So, for this part of the legend to be true, the oceans must have risen abruptly.

But conventional theory has it that the oceans have risen slowly and steadily over thousands of years due to a steady melting of the ice caps.

Some catastrophes are known to have happened, such as the flooding of Doggerland in the North Sea some ten to twelve thousand years ago. But all in all, sea levels have moved higher without much in the way of catastrophe.

Sundaland, in East Asia, is another area that is known to have sunk into the sea with rising sea levels, and some have suggested that the legend of Atlantis is merely a reference to places such as Sundaland and Doggerland. But these places are not where Plato puts Atlantis. Nor is it a given that these areas disappeared slowly rather than catastrophically. We merely assume that sea levels rose steadily over centuries because that's how great volumes of snow and ice melt.

However, if large amounts of land ice were to slide into the oceans, there would be catastrophic floodings without any exceptional melting going on, and this could happen very quickly.

Icesheet slippage

For instance, if the current Greenland icesheet slid into the Atlantic ocean, there would be a huge tsunami, followed by a permanent sea rise of up to 7.4 meters. So, if something like that happened in the past, we would have had a situation similar to the one described by Plato.

The strong earthquake that rocked Atlantis, according to Plato's story, may have triggered an icesheet slippage relatively close by, which would have caused a tsunami to wipe out most of the island. Shortly thereafter, there'd be a catastrophic flooding of Doggerland, and this would in turn be followed by a global rise in sea levels, affecting low-lying lands everywhere, including Sunnaland.

So, when the few survivors from Atlantis returned to their island to look for it, they would have found it permanently sunken into the sea. Instead of dry land, they would have found shallows and islands, like Plato said they did.

Rapid disappearance of icesheets

This scenario, if sufficiently large scale, or repeated several times, would have greatly accelerated the melting of the ice caps, because water is a lot more effective than air in melting snow and ice. Instead of air and sun melting the ice over tens of thousands of years, the icesheets would have disappeared within a few thousand years, which is what appears to have happened, based on geological records.

Icesheet slippage can therefore explain how the enormous icecaps of the great ice age came to disappear as quickly as they did. But by what mechanism would this have happened?

The igloo effect

A phenomenon rarely considered when it comes to truly enormous icesheets is what's known as the igloo effect. Yet, this mechanism may be key to understanding why great ice ages tend to come to sudden and catastrophic ends, where ice that has accumulated over tens of thousands of years disappear in a tiny fraction of this time span.

To understand this, we have to recognize that ice and snow are insulators that prevent heat from escaping. For example, the inside of an igloo can be a great deal warmer than outside temperatures, even with a relatively small heat source at its center.

The same goes for icesheets where the temperatures close to the ground can be a great deal warmer than at their surface, because Earth itself is a heat source. In fact, once an icesheet becomes sufficiently thick, temperatures at ground level may go permanently above freezing. Instead of being anchored to the ground through frost, the icesheet comes unglued.

Sitting on top of large pools of fresh water, the icesheet becomes unstable and liable to slip, because ice is virtually frictionless when pressed against a wet surface.

Planetary expansion

Once an icesheet looses its anchoring, a large chunk of it can break loose and slide into the ocean. All it takes is a sufficiently strong earthquake for disaster to ensue. It's therefore interesting to note that there's evidence to suggest that our planet is expanding, and that this happens in fits and starts that coincide with ice ages.

Furthermore, Earth's expansion is lopsided, with the Pacific region expanding faster than the Atlantic. A consequence of this is that Greenland, Canada and Scandinavia have moved southwards from where they were located at the start of the last great ice age.

This explains why it was Canada and Scandinavia that together with Greenland held the bulk of ice on the northern hemisphere during the last great ice age, and why northern Russia was less affected. It also suggests to us that Canada and Scandinavia may have shed their icesheets, largely or in part, by slippage into surrounding waters.

Mass extinctions

There also appears to be a relationship between the size of our planet and the maximum size of land animals. Not only were dinosaurs larger than the mammals that followed them, but ancient mammals were larger than mammals are today, and the same goes for birds. Furthermore, mass extinctions happen periodically, and the latest episodes coincided with what was presumably the latest fits of Earth expansion some twelve and four thousand years ago.

Researchers, such as Stephen Hurrell, have pointed out that mass extinctions are likely due to an increase in gravity that correspond to an increase in the size of our planet. So, it wasn't climate change or human activity that killed off the Saber Tooth Tiger, the Giant Sloth and the Woolly Mammoths. Rather, it was an increase in gravity that did this, coupled with an inability by these animals to respond sufficiently quickly with smaller offspring.

On the other hand, large animals that managed to produce smaller offspring have survived to this day. The African lion being a prime example of this.

This too fits well with the legend of Atlantis where Platon implies that animals at the time were larger and more voracious than they are today.

Conclusion

The legend of Atlantis dovetails well with a number of observations and theories related to the history of our planet. Every aspect of the story can be explained, including the island's sudden and dramatic demise. But the only way to conclusively find out if the legend is true would be to survey its supposed location for human artifacts. Until that happens, we must treat this legend with the same skepticism that we treat any other legend or theory.

When Someone Better Comes Along

No relationship is perfect. There's always someone out there that can be considered better than our spouse, and my wife will sometimes say, ironically of course, that she could have done better. To which I respond that I too could have done better. It's a bit of a running joke with us because we never deluded ourselves into thinking that we were getting into the perfect relationship to start with. We know perfectly well that there are others out there, and that they might have been even better. We've settled for above average and built our relationship on that.

The better one

So, what happens when "someone better" comes along? Do we drop everything and rush off to hook up with this other person? Or do we avoid this person for fear of temptation? Or is there perhaps room for less drastic actions?

I think a lot of people simply avoid the "better ones" so that they don't have to deal with the agony of temptation. But that's a sad strategy because it means that we deliberately avoid people who intrigue us just because we fear what is in the end a very unlikely outcome.

A better strategy is to approach these people with the genuine curiosity and enthusiasm that we have for them. This may trigger some silly fantasies. But is that really such a bad thing? It's not like we act out every fantasy we ever had. Why should this one be any different?

Acting on my curiosity

So, the other day, when I came across the woman who was everyone's darling back in high school, I decided to respond to one of her observations about life. I was curious because I thought her always the very embodiment of a happy and carefree person, yet she talked as if life had been hard on her.

One thing led to another, and pretty soon we were talking about all sorts of stuff. The thought struck me that this really is a fantastic woman. She's beautiful, full of interesting ideas, and wealthy. The hardships she's been through haven't dented her overall positive outlook on life. She's also single, and evidently ready to hook up with "the right one".

So now, what do I do? I can't continue talking to this woman behind my wife's back, because that only adds to the fantasy of eloping with her. I had to take this conversation out of the shadows, or I had to break it off.

Bringing things out in the open

Not interested in simply cutting off the conversation, I decided to let my wife know about it. But her immediate reaction was brutal. Why don't you just pack your suitcases and go? she asked. Which was odd, because I had merely stated my genuine curiosity for my old class mate. I had hardly completed my first few sentences before my wife concluded that I had found "the better one", and that I was therefore prepared to rush off at a moment's notice.

Refusing to back down on my story, I decided to up it a notch, playing along with my wife's hysteria, which of course only served to make her even more angry. But I figured I might as well stir the pot to get all the drama out in the open. I recognized her reaction for what it was, so I knew what to do about it.

The aftermath

Now that a few days have passed since the incident, things are already back to normal. I've passed the tests, and with the conversation I'm having with my former class mate out in the open, the fantasies I had are quickly fading.

I'm glad I didn't hold back in contacting my friend, and I'm glad I told my wife about it.

An opportunity to grow

I've had an interesting conversation with a woman I always admired, and my wife is now getting confirmation that I'm not going to pack my bags even when a very attractive alternative crosses my path.

None of this would have happened if I simply avoided any contact with my former school mate, which goes to prove that cowardly behavior ends up being nothing but missed opportunities. When we're faced with a challenge, especially one that intrigues us, embrace it!

Navigating a storm

By maybe Allan C. Green or George Schutze or maybe Alexander Harper Turner - This image is available from the Our Collections of the State Library of Victoria under the Accession Number:, Public Domain, Link

Not Mainly Between Our Ears

Sexual libido is said to be something that resides mainly between our ears, but that's not the case, not for men in any case. Rather, it has a direct relationship to men's health. If our Kegel muscles are in good shape, and we're feeling fine, especially in the area between our navel and our knees, we'll perform well, even with a minimum of visual or otherwise sensual input.

I know this for a fact, because I've followed my own advice, and the results have been remarkable. Furthermore, I've done this for two years, so it's clear that this is not some temporary solution that quickly fades. It's a stayer in more than one sense of the word. In fact, my sexual powers are back to where they were in my forties.

None of this has anything to do with what's going on between my ears. But things have changed there too. Right off the bat, when starting my new exercise routines, I noticed a greater awareness of the women I see and meet. In that way too, I've been brought back to my forties.

It's clear from this that physical wellbeing drives sensuality, and it's also clear that this doesn't work in reverse. Men cannot improve their libido by finding a younger spouse, or by watching porn, or indulge in any other erotically stimulating activity, including fire place cuddling and romantic trips. Whatever positive effect is gained this way is short lived and unreliable.

However, even subtle stimuli will work wonders on a man with a healthy body. The shy smile of a pretty girl, the voice of a lady friend, and the unexpected sight of a skirt lifted by the wind. These are suddenly powerful inputs.

This is not to say that we should cut out porn completely from our lives, as some puritans keep insisting. Because porn isn't really a problem. It's a disappointing and ineffective way to gain satisfaction. That's true. But as a visual kick to boost one's hunger, it works fine.

Porn is neither a cure nor a curse. It's a strong visual stimuli, pure and simple, and the fact that it doesn't work as a permanent cure for a dwindling libido underscores the fact that sex doesn't reside primarily between our ears. No amount of sexual fantasizing can cure a weak libido. Only physical health can do that.

Cinderella

By Sarah Noble Ives - https://www.americanantiquarian.org/AabMcL53.htm, Public Domain, Link

Feeling Great

More than a year has passed since I wrote this comprehensive article on my personal health issues, so it's time to augment it with a few further observations.

Skin related issues

Skin issues are notoriously difficult to get rid of, so hardly any of my problems have completely disappeared. However, things are definitely improving.

A daily massage of affected areas with olive oil has proven effective, but there are other oils that appear to be better. Tea oil is one of them. However, the difference is not very great, so I'm sticking to olive oil for now.

The important thing is to keep at it. Sticking with the routine of massaging affected areas is more important than finding the right oil.

Digestion

My digestion is sometimes slow and sometimes a little too fast, depending on what I eat. To regulate this, I've discovered the benefit of cumin seeds. I've also found that ginger has a laxative effect. However, the most important factors appear to be water and salt intake.

It's important to drink relatively generous amounts of water every day. But the body will not retain this unless something salty is consumed as well, so I've made it a habit to drink one to two liters of tea every day, and to treat myself to some salty pickles.

Cravings

This was discovered by paying attention to cravings. At one point I had a craving for ginger, and at another time I had a craving for salty pickles. As it turned out, both are good for my digestion.

It appears then that cravings aren't as irrational as I've thought. If a craving comes out of the blue, and is unrelated to what I normally crave, chances are that this is something that will help my digestion. Our bodies know what's good for it, and we need to listen to what it's telling us.

Dirty trick

As for serious constipations, I have a dirty trick I can use, because I'm allergic to cayenne peppers. If I ingest this, my bowels will empty themselves within hours. However, this puts my whole system out of whack, so it's not something I'll do regularly.

Paying attention to how often I sit on the porcelain, and making sure I push out a cable at least once every two days is key. Sometimes, I need to sit there a little longer than I would have liked, but that's better than ending up with a big problem.

Exercise

Going out for a walk every day is good for both my digestion and overall well being. It's something I therefore take seriously.

Fresh air and a bit of sun lightens the spirit, focuses the mind, and relaxes the body. There's nothing quite like it, and it's completely free, because a walk around the neighborhood is all that it takes.

Libido and sexual performance

The vigorous Kegel exercises I've prescribed for myself have proved themselves effective. Additionally, I've discovered that masturbation without release increases sexual performance. Bringing the penis to an erection, and keeping it there for a while, purely as an exercise, result in more reliable and long lasting erections, much to the delight of my wife and myself.

Feeling great

Polarized Light from Stars and Galaxies

Magnetic fields have polarizing effects on light, and it is through this effect that we know that all stars, including our Sun, have strong magnetic fields.

These fields are generally explained as a feature of electric currents flowing in and out of stars. The overall flow passes through the rotational poles of these objects, and thus we end up with a simplified model of stars having magnetic north and a south poles that align with their rotation, and that we know to periodically flip through pole reversals.

All of this can be explained in terms of current flows. However, there's a secondary polarization that doesn't align with rotation, and this is harder to explain because it doesn't seem to be directly related to any current flow. This is pointed out in this YouTube lecture by Jean de Clemont.

The secondary polarization aligns with the axis of the galaxies that the stars are in, but the magnetic field of galaxies are too weak to explain the relatively strong spike in observed polarization of their stars. Something else appears to be at play, and Jean de Clemont suggests that the secondary polarization is not due to an electric current flow, but rather the flow of a dense and highly fluid aether.

The aether flows with the galaxy, and produces in this way its own polarizing effect, separate from the flow of electrons.

This idea aligns well with the aether proposed in my book, where space itself is an aether that latches onto all sorts of reference frames, ranging from entire galaxies down to stars, planets and even trees and buildings.

The Faraday effect, light getting polarized by a magnetic field

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.

Whale Bones in the Sahara Desert

There are whale bones in the Sahara desert. Whale bones have also been found in Peru and Chile.

At first glance, this may look like evidence for a great flood. However, the bones are ancient. They don't belong to animals that exist today. By some estimates they are as much as 43 million years old, so if the whales died due to a flood it's not the flood mentioned in the Bible, nor is this evidence in support of Peter Warlow's tippe-top theory.

Rather, this supports the position that Earth is an expanding planet that was largely covered by shallow seas as recently as 43 million years ago.

The whales died in these seas, or they were beached next to them. As our planet continued its expansion, their remains grew increasingly remote from water, until today where they are found far inland.

Expanding Earth seen from the South Pole

How Gravity Relates to the Electric Force

Gravity is due to an imbalance in the electric force which makes electric repulsion a tiny bit weaker than electric attraction.

This means that Newton's law is in fact a variation on Coulomb's law, and we should therefore be able to establish a formal relationship between the two.

It's not enough to say that G is a proxy for k, and that M1 and M2 represent total charge while q1 and q2 represent net charge. However, it's a good starting point.

As we will see, the relationship between Coulomb's law and Newton's universal law of gravity can be formally quantified and explained.

Coulomb's law compared to Newton's law

How G relates to k

First off, we need to realize that the two constants k and G are related in that they both transform an intermediate result into force. Both of the above equations yield result in Newton, and this is only because of k and G.

With the only other difference between the two equations being q1 and q2 vs M1 and M2, we should be able to find a relationship between these quantities simply by dividing G by k.

k and G have been measured to be:

k = 8.98755 10^9 kg m^3/C^2s^2 , where C is charge expressed in Coulomb

G = 6.6743 10^-11 m^3/kg s^2

Dividing G by k we get:

G/k = (6.6743 10^-11)/(8.98755 10^9) C^2/kg^2

G/k = 7.426 10^-21 C^2/kg^2

How G/k relates to inherent charge imbalance in matter

The thing to note about this result is that we have C squared divided by kg squared.

The reason for this is that we naturally get a square if we multiply q1 with q2 or M1 with M2. To get a result that relates one mass quantity to one charge quantity, we need to take the square root of G/k.

This yields the magnitude of the electric imbalance inherent in neutral matter. It relates matter expressed in kg to its inherent charge imbalance expressed in C, and we will call this value p for short:

p = (G/k)^1/2

p = 8.618 10^-11 C/kg

What this means

We can now use p to transform matter measured in kg into charge imbalance measured in C. For every 1 kg of matter, we have an imbalance of 8.618 10^-11 C.

If we put two neutral 1 kg masses next to each other, with only 1 mm of separation, we get a force corresponding to 0.067 mN.

To get a corresponding force by simply charging the two masses we need to add 538 million electrons to one of the masses and subtract 538 million electrons from the other mass.

This may sound like a lot, but there are 3.055 10^24 atoms in a kg of gold, and each atom of gold has 79 electrons. The total number of electrons corresponding to 1 kg of matter is therefore roughly 2.4 10^20 million electrons.

The imbalance in the electric force caused by 1 kg of matter is in other word a mere 5 10^-15 percent of the total number of electrons present in the material.

This means that a measurement in an electric lab has to be precise to 17 digits after the decimal point to even start registering the effect of gravity. No wonder then that gravity has never been measured in such a laboratory.

Our proxy is a variable

If gravity is due to a minuscule imbalance in the electric force, it's likely to be dependent on other electric factors as well, such as capacitance and charge. This makes p a variable rather than a constant, and by extension we get that G is a variable too.

It follows that two bodies don't necessarily have the same value for p. A small body with little capacitance will have a different p than a large body with a lot of capacitance.

From observations we can further infer that it is the large bodies that have the greatest values for p, because large bodies seem to be more gravitationally strong, relative to their sizes, than small bodies.

With this in mind we can put together a modified version of Newton's formula as follows.

Newton's formula expressed in terms of k and p

It's now possible to convert mass expressed in kg into a charge imbalance expressed in C. By multiplying p with M we get units corresponding to point charges and we can therefore express Newton's law as follows:

Newton's law expressed in terms of k and p

Instead of G, we get p1 and p2 which relate the masses M1 and M2 to their respective charge imbalances.

With this transformation in place, Coulomb's law can be used for both gravity and the electric force. These two forces have thus been formally joined together, leaving us with no need for the gravitational constant G.

Vulcan and the Mercury Anomaly

Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun a little faster than predicted by Newton, and this has been a subject for debate in astronomy ever since this was discovered. However, the debate is currently considered settled by Einstein, who demonstrated that a curved space-time could account for the observed fact. But this doesn't mean that there are no alternative explanations.

Alternative explanations

I've presented two possible alternatives in my book, and Dr. Robitaille, who's an expert on astrophysics, has come up with an elegant take on the phenomenon that doesn't invoke anything outside of standard Newtonian mechanics.

Dr. Robitaille starts off by mentioning the hypothetical planet Vulcan that was proposed as a first attempt at explaining the anomaly back in the nineteenth century. The idea was that if there was a planet orbiting between Mercury and the Sun, this planet would pull Mercury with it, thereby speeding it up ever so slightly. However, the planet was never found, and the idea was abandoned.

But if the Sun has a blob inside of it so that the center of gravity is a little skewed we'll get the same effect. The blob rotates with the Sun, and whenever it passes Mercury, it gives Mercury a little tug. Vulcan may in other words exist, but as a blob inside our Sun rather than a planet orbiting it.

Jupiter's Red Spot

An interesting aspect of Dr. Robitaille's proposed blob is its similarity to Jupiter's Red Spot, because the Red Spot is in fact a blob. It has been measured to be gravitationally stronger than its surroundings. It stands taller than the surrounding atmosphere, and it's becoming more circular and compact.

However, the Vulcan blob is not visible at the surface of the Sun. If it exists, it's located somewhere below the Sun's surface. But apart from that, the blob and the Red Spot have a lot in common, so if the Red Spot is an embryonic moon of Jupiter, could it be that the Vulcan blob is an embryonic planet that might one day be ejected by the Sun?

Jupiter ejecting a moon

The Cosmic Microwave Background

The Cosmic Microwave Background is an ubiquitous background radiation of the universe, viewed by astronomers as strong evidence in support of the Big Bang. However, the evidence is not as conclusive as many make it out to be, and Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille explains why this is so in his series of lectures on the subject.

Redshift

First off, we need to consider the phenomenon of redshift, and how it is interpreted, because it is the redshift in the microwave background that gives us reasons to believe that the observed signal is the afterglow of the Big Bang.

The way redshift is detected is that molecules that occupy a space between a light source and an observer show up as lines in the observer's light specter. Every molecule has its own signature of lines, and these lines belong to specific frequency ranges. When such lines appear out of place relative to where they should have been, we have either blueshift or redshift, depending on whether the signal is bluer or redder than expected.

In the case of the microwave background, the redshift constitutes a shift from visible light to microwave. That's an enormous shift. Furthermore, the redshift is identical wherever we look.

One event or multiple events

From the way the data is presented, it looks like the microwave background is the result of a single event, because multiple events would give different redshift signals depending on where they happened. It also looks like the event was extreme, like a big explosion.

However, Dr. Robitaille is far from convinced that we have in fact observed a nice sharp redshift footprint in the microwave background. He points out weaknesses in the methods used. Instead of a single event, it appears that we're dealing with a lot of different events who's signals average out to something sharp and greatly redshifted.

What these events have in common is that they appear to be distant. But this can be explained by the fact that the farther out we look, the more of the universe we see. At the very limit of the observable universe, we see a huge number of stars for every arch second of sky, and it speaks for itself that this region must generate an almost uniform background signal.

The microwave background is in other words likely to be the glow of distant stars.

Relative to this, all other explanations come across as contrived. Why invoke a Big Bang, when everybody knows that stars generate heat?

Proton decay

My proposed alternative explanation to the Big Bang is also contrived when viewed in this perspective. But I will give it a mention nevertheless, because a balanced universe requires a mechanism known as proton decay for things to balance out, and this will generate heat.

If matter becomes heavier over time, as proposed by Halton Arp, it must eventually evaporate back into radiation for our universe to be both balanced and eternal. There must be a limit to how heavy protons can become before they decay, and once decay sets in, it must be irreversible.

If we assume that matter is created in the hot centers of galaxies, we can equally assume that protons decay at the dark edges of these same galaxies. Every galaxy would therefore be surrounded by a faint glow at low energy levels. With galaxies everywhere around us in the universe, we'd get a uniform background radiation.

Assuming further that protons decay into photons and light weight hydrogen, possibly with some helium as well, we get an explanation for the observed redshift in the hydrogen and helium specters as well.

EM Spectrum Properties

By Inductiveload, NASA - self-made, information by NASABased off of File:EM Spectrum3-new.jpg by NASAThe butterfly icon is from the P icon set, File:P biology.svg The humans are from the Pioneer plaque, File:Human.svg The buildings are the Petronas towers and the Empire State Buildings, both from File:Skyscrapercompare.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link