The Nuclear Strong Force Indicates that Particles have Texture

The nuclear strong force behaves in a way consistent with the model of particles presented on this website. Because the force is zero at a distance of about 0.8 fm and at its strongest attraction at a distance of about 1 fm, after which it drops off quickly to zero.

Detailed model of particle quanta

Keeping in mind that the force here described is acting between two particle quanta, we can propose the following detailed model of a single particle quantum:

• It has a radius of about 0.4 fm.
• It has texture with typical hair length of 0.2 fm.
• There are no hairs longer than about 1 fm.

Particle quantum interaction

So, if two such particles interact, we get the following:

• At a distance less than 0.8 fm from center to center, we get strong repulsion due to the particles themselves.
• At a distance of 1 fm we get strong attraction due to a maximum number of hairs being stretched to their limits.
• At a distance of more than 2.8 fm, the force disappears due to a lack of any hairs remaining in contact between the particles.

Conclusion

This is exactly what has been measured, as can be seen from this graph:

Strong force vs. distance

By Bdushaw - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Predictions for 2026

2025 is coming to an end, and it's time to make another assessment of previously made predictions, as well as a new set of predictions going forward.

Assessment of predictions made for 2024

My last full year prediction was made late 2023.

Much of it didn't come true in 2024. But by 2025, I've been proven right.

This is not the first time this has happened.

I keep making accurate predictions as far as events are concerned. My problem is that I keep thinking they are more imminent than they were.

So, I will draw out my timelines as I make predictions going forward.

The new era

My assessment of 2022, made back in early 2023, was that the so called Progressive era that started in 1913, has come to an end.

This assessment looks increasingly accurate. Progressive era institutions are devolving, and new doctrines are emerging.

This will almost certainly continue in the years ahead.

Devolving institutions:

• The WHO
• UN climate science
• NATO
• EU
• Western central banks
• Islam
• Socialist policies

Emerging institutions and doctrines:

• New Monroe doctrine (the "Donroe" doctrine)
• Gold back finance
• Russia-Chinese cooperation
• India
• Africa tilting East
• Christian renaissance
• Libertarian politics

Geopolitics

The US is in the process of pulling out of Europe. So, Europe will have to find its own way. The push is currently for continued hostilities towards Russia. But I won't think this will continue for long.

The war in Ukraine will end with Russian victory. The war in Gaza will end with Israel winning at the expense of its popularity. However, the US will continue to support Israel.

With the EU in decline, European nations will go their own way. They will choose cooperation and trade with Russia over armed conflict.

Africa will see US interfere in regions where militant Islam is active. The Russians will be active in the Sahel, where they will keep France out. China will also expand their influence.

The net result will not be proxy wars, but peace and economic growth.

South America will continue to tilt towards libertarian doctrines, led by Argentina. The result will be economic growth followed by population growth.

India and China will continue their growth. This may result in more tensions. But here too, peace will prevail.

Health

Common sense health is currently replacing institutional health.

This will result in improved health, especially in the US, as predicted back in May.

Price inflation

Gold went up a whopping 50% this year It's currently trading at $4,500, which is more than 100%.

This means that we have blown past the two technical limits at $3,000 and $4,000, found in the long chart.

It also means that we're headed for hyper-inflation. Because the gold price is a reliable early indicator of monetary weakness.

Western central banks are in decline, and the only way out is a gold based standard.

Price inflation will be high by end 2026, but probably not into extremes.

As a consequence, some gold based alternative will establish visibility. There will be some early adaption.

This new money will either come reluctantly from the public sector, or it will emerge from the private sector due to market demand.

Popular politics

Trump has introduced a new type of politics that is confusing his opponents.

It consists of a combination of trolling and real-politics. While his opponents get hung up in his trolling, real changes are made to the global order.

This makes it look like socialism and Islam is making a comeback. However, the opposite is true. Conservative and libertarian forces are getting stronger.

Christians are turning away from controlled institutions, which makes it look like this religion is in decline. But we're merely seeing a shift away from institutions. There's even a an awakening going on.

This trend has only started.

Demographics

This is another long term trend that is largely misunderstood.

There are, within all nations, a considerable subgroup that reproduces above sustainability. So, it is incorrect to linearly expand the current population decline.

What is in fact going on is that the anti-population groups within nations are going extinct.

The pro-population groups, on the other hand, are growing.

The pro-population consists of conservatives, libertarians and Christians. So, the future will turn increasingly towards these ideologies. However, it will take years before this trend becomes obvious.

Education

With conservatives, libertarians and Christians in the ascent, education will turn away from socialism and anti-population doctrines such as climate hysteria and the like.

This too will emerge slowly at first, before becoming obvious some years down the line.

Conclusion

2026 will be marked by continuing chaos. However, patterns will start to emerge. The new era is taking shape.

Quarterly performance of gold up until 2026

Mass as Aether Interaction

Mass is a central concept in physics. Yet, when people go looking for it by smashing matter into bits, they find nothing but neutral or charged fragments.

It's almost as if mass is hiding somewhere. But where could that be?

Conventional physics

In conventional physics, space is but an empty void. So, the only place to look for mass is inside matter. But decades of looking has revealed nothing.

Some may say that the Higgs Boson is where mass is hiding. But the evidence for this is far from conclusive. So, mass is conventionally thought of as something fundamental to matter. Wherever there is matter, there is mass.

No further explanation is given.

Aether physics

However, in aether physics, space is not an empty void.

Space has many properties. Among other things, it interacts constantly with matter. So, space is taken into consideration in all matters related to kinetics.

From objective analysis we find that there are three distinct types of acceleration. All of them adhering to Newton's formulas, where mass is fundamental.

These accelerations are:

• Linear due to directly applied force
• Angular due to tethering
• Linear due to applied field forces

As we will see, all of these accelerations involve the aether in different ways. Yet, there's a common denominator that makes them identical for purposes of calculations, and this common denominator is what we refer to as mass.

But there is no mass as a thing of its own in the real world. In aether physics, mass is but an abstraction derived from the fact that aether interacts with matter.

To see how this works, we need to look closer at how matter interacts with the aether.

Linear acceleration due to directly applied force

Of the three accelerations mentioned above, acceleration due to directly applied force is the only one that adds energy to matter.

Angular acceleration and acceleration due to field forces don't add energy.

This is because only direct force requires particles at the subatomic to change in size, and hence energy, in order to accelerate. So, adding energy is a necessary part of this type of acceleration.

This is done by the help of the aether, which is limited by the speed of light in order to perform this task. So, we get a time delay between applied force and increase in energy.

This time delay is experienced by us as a resistance to change. Also known as inertia.

So, when we make calculations related to inertial mass, we are in fact dealing with the time delay caused by the aether's inability to act instantaneously.

Angular acceleration

When a moving object is tethered to a central point, either by a string, or by the use of a field force, it undergoes acceleration. But no energy is added or subtracted to the object.

Yet, there's a measurable force involved, and it equates to what we would have to apply in order to achieve linear acceleration of the same magnitude.

So, there's something fundamental going on that connects linear acceleration directly to angular acceleration.

This too must be due to the aether's inability to act instantaneously. But with no energy being added, the mechanism involved must be different.

We cannot use the analogy of a pressure wave in the aether.

But we can nevertheless explain this in terms of matter interacting with the aether. Because all moving particles come with an accompanying pilot wave.

In the case of angular acceleration, there is no pressure wave. But there is a pilot wave, and it too is limited by the speed of light.

The constant need to change the direction of pilot waves, and influence associated particles accordingly, produces the exact same delay as pressure waves.

We can therefore use the concept of inertial mass to make calculations related to both linear and angular acceleration.

Linear acceleration due to applied field forces

In aether physics, the three field forces, magnetism, the electric force, and gravity, have one common denominator. They all operate through manipulation of the aether.

Repelling forces come about when aether particles are drawn into the field between acting bodies, and attracting forces come about when aether particles are expelled.

But this produces no pressure wave. Nor is there any pilot wave involved. Because space itself is manipulated.

So, when an object moves freely under the influence of a field force it does so with its reference frame moving with it. As far as the object is concerned, it remains in a state of rest during its entire flight. It isn't before the object stops moving at the end of its journey that energy is released.

This makes acceleration due to field forces distinctly different from acceleration due to directly applied force, or angular acceleration.

But, we end up with the appearance of inertia nevertheless. Because field forces result in accelerations that are directly proportional to the volume of subatomic particles involved.

This volume is independent of how densely packed the particles are. So, there's a direct relationship between acceleration due to applied field forces and other types of acceleration. Because they too are directly related to the number of particles involved.

Conclusion

Mass isn't something inherent to matter alone. There's no mass inside particles. Rather, mass is an artifact of the aether interacting with matter.

However, as long as scientists deny the existence of an aether, people will keep looking into matter in search of some elusive mass particle that simply isn't there.

By Force.png: Penubagderivative work: Arnaud Ramey (talk) - Force.png and File:Compound_pulley.svg, Public Domain, Link

Field Forces and the Aether

In aether physics, the three field forces; magnetism, the electric force and gravity; all operate through manipulation of the aether.

Zero-point particles are pumped into or out of the field between active objects, which causes these objects to move.

Particles as bundles of strings

But inertial matter is largely transparent to aether particles. The only thing opaque about electrons and protons is the strings from which they are made.

So, when the aether acts on particles of inertial matter, it is only interacting with strings. Because every other characteristic of matter is invisible to it.

The surface area, shape, density, chemistry, or any other higher level property of matter is of no importance.

As far as acceleration goes, the only thing that matters to field forces is the total volume of strings involved. 

Field force acceleration

This means that field forces act on volumes of strings rather than surface areas, or other characteristics of particles.

So, the acceleration produced by a field force is proportional to the volume of aether flux, divided by the total volume of strings involved:

• a ∝ af/sv, where 'a' is field force acceleration, 'af' is aether flux, and 'sv' is string volume.

This can be tested against what we know about field forces to see if it holds up against scrutiny.

Tests

In the case of magnetism, we know that a magnet of a certain strength will accelerate at a corresponding rate, dependent only on how massive it is. The more massive the magnet, the more sluggish its acceleration relative to a less massive magnet of the same strength.

This fits well with our formula, because the more massive magnet has more particles in it, and therefore a larger volume of strings.

The same goes for the electric force. It too accelerates objects depending on aether flux and string volume.

As for gravity, there are no inactive particles involved. Because any addition of strings, in the form of inertial matter, result in a corresponding change in aether flux. So, acceleration due to Earth's gravity is the same for all objects, regardless of shape and density.

Inertia is not part of the equation

Note that there is no mention of inertia in all of this.

This is important because inertia is defined by us as a time delay related to energy transfers.

But for free falling objects under the influence of gravity, magnetism or the electric force, there's no energy transfer. So, inertia, as it is defined by us, cannot be part of our equation.

Mass is not part of the equation either

Similarly for mass, which we view as a mere abstraction, we make no mention of it.

So, once again, we've been able to describe phenomena related to matter and acceleration with no mention of mass.

Conclusion

The three field forces; magnetism, the electric force and gravity; can be explained without any mention of mass.

This goes hand in hand with our definitions of inertia and matter, which are also without any mention of mass.

We remain therefore confident that mass is but an abstraction, useful in calculations, but with no direct existence in the real world.

By Frank Eugene Austin - image had initials 'F.E.A.' in lower left corner. - Downloaded August 25, 2008 from Frank Eugene Austen (1916) Examples in Magnetism, 2nd Ed., Hanover, N.H., USA, p.31, plate 2 on Google Books, Public Domain, Link

A Theory of Matter that does not Include the Concept of Mass

The concepts of inertial and gravitational mass are central to conventional thinking related to matter. Especially the principle of equivalence, which states that the two types of mass are the same.

However, our alternative theory of matter doesn't include mass as anything but an abstraction. Instead, of mass, we have particles with positive and negative charge. Yet, our theory yields identical results to conventional ones.

To see why this is so, we need to compare conventional theory to our alternative.

Inertia

Inertia is conventionally defined as resistance to changes in velocity. No further explanation is given.

However, in our alternative theory, we have an explanation.

Inertia is due to the fact that it takes time to transfer energy from one object to another. So, we end up with a mismatch between the pressure we apply and any consequent change in motion. The delay comes across as resistance.

Energy

Energy is another property that's poorly defined in conventional theory. It's simply a property related to matter and particles like photons.

However, in our alternative theory, energy is defined as surface area at the subatomic. Energetic particles are larger than less energetic particles of the same kind. So, when energy is added to an object, the total surface area of its subatomic particles increases.

With more surface area to cover in order to transfer energy, the time required to do so goes up, and hence we get an increase in inertia.

Gravity

Gravity is conventionally thought of as a force proportional to the masses involved. So, when inertia increases due to more matter, gravity increases to the exact same degree. The acceleration due to gravity is therefore identical for all objects, no matter their size or shape.

However, this too lacks any good explanation.

But in our alternative theory, gravity is due to an imbalance in the electric force. Repulsion between equally charged particles is a tiny bit less strong than attraction between opposite charged particles.

For massive objects, this minuscule imbalance adds up to a measurable force that's always attracting, and it is this force that we call gravity.

This force is proportional to the number of charged particles involved at the subatomic. So, we end up with the same conclusion as the one derived from conventional thinking. The more matter we have, the more gravity we get.

Proportionalities

So, in our theory, we have inertia as something proportional to energy.

Adding energy to an object results in more inertia.

However, gravity is unaffected by energy. Because it's related only to the total number of charged particles involved. The number of charged particles we have at the subatomic remains the same regardless of how much energy we have.

So, when energy is added to an object, inertia increases while gravity remains the same.

Inertia and free falling objects

From this, it appears that we must conclude that energetic objects fall at a slower rate than less energetic objects of the same kind. Because the energetic objects have more inertia, so it's harder for gravity to pull on them.

However, this ignores the fact that no energy is transferred to or from objects in free fall. Inertia, as it is defined in our theory, has nothing to do with free falling objects. It's only when these objects hit the ground that energy is transferred to other objects.

So, gravity is an acceleration more than it is a force. Hence, the principle of equivalence, proposed by Einstein.

The aether

Einstein concluded in his work that space-time must be curved, and that this curvature is proportional to the masses involved.

This is equivalent to our alternative proposal, which involves an aether.

The idea is that gravity is due to aether escaping from in between gravitational objects. This produces a low pressure of sorts that draws objects together.

But this low pressure is not produced by the elusive entity that we call mass. It depends instead on the number of charged particles involved at the subatomic.

With no change in charge when energy is added to matter, the acceleration due to the aether remains unchanged.

So, here again, we see that our model produces results identical to what we get with models based on mass.

Conclusion

There's no need to conjure up an elusive concept called mass in order to explain inertia and gravity. Because a theory centered around charges and the size of particles at the subatomic gives the exact same results.

Scale for measuring weight

By M.Minderhoud - White Background by Amada44, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Dimorphos and Didymos revisited

Three years have passed since NASA’s DART probe hit the asteroid Dimorphos. An impact that shortened its orbit around its parent asteroid Didymos by ten minutes.

Successful mission

The result was well within what NASA had predicted, and was therefore considered proof of concept for the kinetic impactor method. However, a study of debris ejected by the impactor shows that large fragments are moving faster than expected.

Something is a little off relative to their theory.

Erroneous predictions

On the other hand, I made two predictions that have not come true. One about the composition of the asteroid, and another one about its change of orbit.

I was also under the misapprehension that the goal of the impact was to widen the orbit. But my prediction had to do with changes to the orbit, independent of whether they are made wider or shorter. So, this is not a big deal.

My main point was that the orbit would be less impacted than predicted by NASA, and that the orbit might even be partially or fully restored to its original after a few years.

This didn't happen. But the reason for this may be found in the unaccounted for energy observed by NASA.

Stability of orbits

My position when it comes to the stability of orbits is that the role of static electricity is underappreciated by astronomers.

Gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion

The two bodies involved in an orbit are both negatively charged. My thinking is therefore that the impact on the smaller body should've been partially countered by the force of electrostatic repulsion. The combination of gravity and the electrostatic force should've mitigated the impact of NASA's probe in much the same way that a shock absorber overcomes mechanical shocks to cars.

Ejected fragments

But if a large number of fragments are ejected from the impacted object, much of that object's initial charge is lost. This is because charge resides mostly at the surface. The shock absorber is damaged, as it were. Much of the repelling force that existed in Dimorphos before the impact was taken over by fragments.

The fragments, highly charged as they were, got in this way an extra boost. Once released from the surface of Dimorphos, they accelerated away from Dimorphos and Didymos with more energy than predicted by NASA.

The net result of this was that NASA got the smaller orbit that it predicted, but also the more energetic fragments than it predicted.

My prediction, on the other hand, failed because the fragments took away the shock absorber effect that I had expected to see.

Had Dimorphos remained intact, with little to no debris ejected, my prediction may well have come true.

Jupiter's Children

An interesting aspect of this is that the ejection of debris from Dimorphos is similar in form to the theory that Jupiter ejects moons whenever it is sufficiently stressed to do so.

Jupiter ejecting a moon

The idea is that Jupiter will eject a moon every now and again, and that this happens with the assistance of electrostatic repulsion.

Once a blob of matter is pushed sufficiently high up, electrostatic repulsion kicks in, and the blob is thrown into space.

This explains the large number of moons orbiting large planets like Jupiter and Saturn. It may even explain Venus' odd behavior and apparent recent arrival in our solar system.

Objects thrown into space by parent objects gain extra energy from electrostatic repulsion.

However, this doesn't explain Dimorphos composition, which is different from what I had expected.

Bundle of rubble

As it turned out, Dimorphos was not the solid rock that I thought it would be. It was a bundle of rubble instead, which begs the questions. How was this assembled? Which force pulled it all together?

My position is that gravity is too weak to pull dust and rubble into lumpy asteroids. I'm not a big fan of the accretion disc theory. But the composition of Dimorphos seems to confirm this model. It can be argued that Dimorphos is the result of millions of years of steady growth due to gravity.

However, we can equally argue that the process of assembly is driven by static charge. Neutral bodies are attracted by charged bodies. Dust sticks to charged balloons. The phenomenon is well known. It's also a lot stronger than gravity.

Conclusion

The experiment performed on Dimorphos by NASA has taught us a lot about asteroids and orbits. But it has not provided conclusive evidence one way or another when it comes to the various theories related to this. All we can say is that the gravity only model is at a loss when it comes to explaining the extra energy evident in debris ejected by Dimorphos. Our competing mode, on the other hand, is only kept standing precisely because there was excess energy transferred to the debris.

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

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

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

The Balanced Universe

The universe is by definition a closed system with no outside mechanism to drive it. This means that every mechanism in the universe will have to have some reverse mechanism for it to persist. Otherwise, it will burn itself out and die.

An eternal universe must additionally have a fixed size, or one that pulsates, sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting. If it shrinks to nothing, it's dead, and if it expands for ever, it can also be considered dead.

However, we cannot simply declare our universe to be eternal. We have to present plausible mechanisms that will prevent it from dying.

A fixed size universe

In a model where gravity is the only force of any significance, we cannot very easily argue for a fixed size universe. It's pretty much impossible for a gravity only universe to balance out. It must either expand into oblivion or it will collapse. Even if it expands ever more slowly so that it never exceeds a size limit, bits of it will collapse from time to time until it's all dead.

However, we don't live in a gravity only universe. There are electric currents flowing through space in the form of plasma. Space is full of electric and magnetic forces that can counteract gravity. These forces make orbits stable, and prevent planets, stars and galaxies from colliding catastrophically. Once this is taken into account, the argument for a fixed size and eternal universe becomes stronger.

Heating and cooling

When we look at our Sun in isolation, we're amazed by the amount of heat it generates. It's tempting to conclude that it must possess a powerful internal furnace, and with billions of stars in our galaxy alone, the cosmos must heat up rapidly.

However, when we consider our Sun in a wider context, we see that it may for the most part be externally driven by plasma flows between stars. If so, little extra energy is required in order to account for the Sun's impressive amount of heat.

If stars are hot primarily due to external factors, there's no reason to think that a fixed size cosmos will heat up quickly. But there will be heating over time, so there is a need for a reverse process from the one going on at the surface of stars. We need a mechanism that can suck energy out of the cosmos, and our prime candidate for this are supernovas because they are known to produce a lot of heavy elements. Despite their brightness, they do in fact consume more energy than they produce.

With a model in which stars produce energy through fission and supernovas consume energy through fusion, we have a balance in which a fixed size universe will remain at a steady overall temperature.

Lifecycle of matter

Halton Arp noted in his time that matter itself age over time. Matter starts off with small protons that grow bigger and heavier over time. This too needs to be balanced with a reverse process. Otherwise, we get an aging universe with matter never returning to its initial youthful lightness.

To solve this problem, I've proposed that there's a limit to how heavy protons can become, and that they will evaporate into positrons, electrons and photons once this limit is reached. This radiation can in turn be used to produce new lightweight matter.

The universe can thus be sustained indefinitely in a balanced fashion, with some regions young, and other regions old and dying.

Life

It should be noted that the death of matter doesn't mean the death of life, because life uses whatever materials there are in its vicinity to reproduce. If life finds ways to move out of old, dying regions of space and into newer regions, life can persist for eternity, and it seems likely that this is in fact how things work. Microorganisms can traverse space randomly, and highly intelligent lifeforms find ways to cross the voids of space from dying regions to younger regions.

It's therefore reasonable to believe that our universe is a huge thriving ecosystem teeming with life.

By NASA, ESA, and the Hubble SM4 ERO Team - http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/25/image/e/, Public Domain, Link

Transmutations on the Electric Sun

Having demonstrated that transmutations can explain both fossilization and processes going on inside our bodies we can go on to consider our Sun and what sort of transmutations it may be engaging in.

The electric Sun

First off, we need to understand the mechanisms driving the Sun itself. The standard model of the Sun is that it is a ball of gas, fueled by an internal fusion reactor that turns Hydrogen into Helium. However, this does not fit well with observations, and this has led some to suggest that the Sun is not a nuclear reactor but an externally driven electric furnace. Additionally, I've proposed that this furnace generates more energy than it consumes. Nuclear processes taking place on the surfaces of stars function as electric accelerators.

A suitable model of our Sun is not the ball of Hydrogen gas that current theory suggests, but an object made out of pretty much the same materials as everything else in our solar system, namely rocks and gases of various kinds. The abundance of Hydrogen seen in the light spectra of our Sun is not indicative of its makeup. Rather, it's due to Hydrogen being split off of heavier elements at its surface through nuclear fission.

This process is not unique to our Sun. It takes place on all stars, and this is why we see so much Hydrogen, Helium and other light elements in space and the corona of our Sun and other stars. The abundance of light elements in space is not a reflection of the overall makeup of our universe, but simply a consequence of the nuclear processes taking place on stars.

Interstellar currents

Note that the energy generated by transmutations of elements on the surface of stars don't have to account for more than a fraction of their energy outputs because stars are primarily electric furnaces. The nuclear reactions taking place are merely maintaining and adding to the interstellar engine of electric currents that drive all stars.

The energy supposedly lost to space through radiation is in the form of charged gases known as plasma, and plasma will always merge and converge onto nearby stars and planets. The energy blasted out into space by our Sun and stars is focused onto other stars and reused.

Little extra energy is required for this to persist, which means that stars can exist for a very long time without running out of fuel.

Transmutations

As for the transmutations taking place on the surface of stars, we have a few general rules we can apply. For one, the overall process must be exothermic. Heat is generated, not consumed. Furthermore, the transmutations are mostly due to fission of Hydrogen and Helium. All sorts of other transmutations may also take place, but the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the coronas of stars tell us that fission is the main driver.

When we combine these observations with the periodic table, and the fact that planets like Earth are especially rich in Silicon and Iron, we find four candidates for what may be the dominant transmutations that take place on stars. They are:

• Silicon (Si) - Hydrogen (H) = Aluminum (Al) + Energy
• Silicon (Si) - Helium (He) = Magnesium (Mg) + Energy
• Iron (Fe) - Hydrogen (H) = Manganese (Mn) + Energy
• Iron (Fe) - Helium (He) = Chromium (Cr) + Energy

Calculations

Using atomic weights found in the periodic table to calculate the energy produced by each of these processes we get the following.

For Si - H = Al + Energy we get:

• Energy = Si - Al - H
• Energy = 28.085 - 26.982 - 1.008
• Energy = 0.095

For Si - He = Mg + Energy we get:

• Energy = Si - Mg - He
• Energy = 28.085 - 24.305 - 4.003
• Energy = -0.223

For Fe - H = Mn + Energy we get:

• Energy = Fe - Mn - H
• Energy = 55.845 - 54.938 - 1.008
• Energy = -0.101

For Fe - He = Cr + Energy we get:

• Energy = Fe - Cr - He
• Energy = 55.845 - 51.996 - 4.003
• Energy = -0.154

Conclusion

From the above calculations we get that only the Silicon to Aluminum transmutation is exothermic. It's the only one that produces energy, and therefore the only one in this list that is happening at any significant rate.

However, this is not to say that Silicon to Aluminum transmutation is the only transmutation taking place on our Sun. Iron may still play an important role because it will release a lot of energy if split into Silicon and Magnesium. Silicon can then in turn split off a hydrogen atom to produce Aluminum, and Magnesium can also shed Hydrogen, as can Aluminum. Long chains of reactions are possible.

When more complex transmutation sequences are considered, we get a long list of possibilities. But if we restrict ourselves to abundant elements found on Earth, and focus on splitting off Hydrogen and Helium from these elements, the list becomes short, and we can conclude that the dominant transmutation taking place on the Sun is that of Silicon to Aluminum, with Hydrogen released into the chromosphere and corona.

Sun's corona and chromosphere during a solar eclipse

By Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Calculations Related to Transmutations

Doing the numbers on Sodium to Potassium transmutations, we were able to demonstrate that this type of transmutation only requires the addition of oxygen, and that the process is endothermic. It results in a cooling effect, and can therefore explain how humans and other large animals can remain temperature steady in sweltering heat when perspiration on its own seems insufficient relative to the enormous task of keeping a large body at a lower temperature.

It appears then that the human body is capable of Sodium to Potassium transmutations, and that this is key to keeping our bodies cool during hot weather. Salt is not only needed for perspiration. It is also needed for the transmutation of Sodium into Potassium, and this is the reason we excrete more Potassium than we consume, and we consume more Sodium than we excrete.

Fossilization

Another type of transmutation that appears to be fairly common in nature is fossilization of animals, plants, clay and mud. These cases too deserve to be investigated in greater details.

Mud, a mix of mainly Silicon and Carbon, is known to transform into shale and mudstone over time. It can also be formed into bricks by applying heat, or simply by letting it dry in the sun.

Clay is better defined than mud, and is a widely used material, known to become hard when heated. Pure clay minerals even have a precise chemical definition, namely Al2Si2O5(OH)4. It's a mix of Aluminum, Silicon, Oxygen and Hydrogen. Regular clay, found in nature, also contains a lot of Iron, hence its red color.

Plants, as we all know, are mainly made up of water and Carbon, and animals are mainly water, Carbon and Calcium.

With this in mind we see that a transformation of mud and clay into rock appears straight forward, while a transformation from plants and animals into rock seems more elaborate. However, even mud and clay seem to require at least some transformation at the atomic level.

Sedimentary rocks are not bricks and pottery made by nature over time. They are not merely transformed by heat. Rather, they appear transmuted into Silicon, either quickly by lightning or slowly over time by radiation coming from the Sun and the cosmos.

Let us therefore look at the transmutations that are possible, and the energies required to make them happen.

Transmutations

Fossils are known to contain more Silicon than what was present before fossilization took place, so we have Silicon as the main end product we are looking to explain. There's also an abundance of manganese oxide at the surface of fossilized bones that needs explaining.

For all the elements available to us we have:

• Hydrogen - symbol H, number 1, weight 1.008
• Carbon - symbol C, number 6, weight 12.011
• Oxygen - symbol O, number 8, weight 15.999
• Magnesium - symbol Mg, number 12, weight 24.305
• Aluminum - symbol Al, number 13, weight 26.982
• Silicon - symbol C, number 14, weight 28.085
• Calcium - symbol Ca, number 20, weight 40.078
• Iron - symbol Fe, number 26, weight 55.845

From this we get a lot of straight forward possibilities for transmutation into Silicon. Restricting ourselves to only consider processes involving two elements, we get the following:

• H + Al = Si + Energy
• C + O = Si + Energy
• Ca - C = Si + Energy
• Fe - Mg = Si + Energy

We have four direct routes to Silicon, which helps us explain the first puzzle, namely the abundance of Silicon in fossilized remains.

Note that if the energy produced is positive, we have an exothermic reaction. If it's negative, we have an endothermic reaction.

Note also, that Iron transmuted into Silicon also produces Magnesium, which we find in abundance around fossilized bones.

Calcium transmuted into Silicon produces additional Carbon, but this Carbon can in turn be turned into Silicon in combination with Oxygen, also in plentiful supply inside living creatures.

It appears then that transmutation may be a major factor in the production of fossilized remains.

Required energies

Moving on to the atomic weights of the various elements, we can calculate the energies involved in the above mentioned transmutations. If we get energies above the weight of a Hydrogen atom, we have to assume that one or more neutron were involved, either ejected in the case of an exothermic reaction or synthesized in the case of an endothermic reaction.

Starting with H + Al = Si + Energy, we get:

• Energy = H + Al - Si
• Energy = 1.008 + 26.982 - 28.085
• Energy = -0.095

C + O = Si + Energy gives us:

• Energy = C + O - Si
• Energy = 12.011 + 15.999 - 28.085
• Energy = -0.075

Ca - C = Si + Energy gives us:

• Energy = Ca - C - Si
• Energy = 40.078 - 12.011 - 28.085
• Energy = -0.018

Fe - Mg = Si + Energy gives us:

• Energy = Fe - Mg - Si
• Energy = 55.845 - 24.305 - 28.085
• Energy = 3.455

The odd one out here is clearly the Iron to Silicon transmutation which produces energy to the tune of three and a half Hydrogen atoms. By contrast, the three other reactions consume energy, and only a tiny bit of it, which means that the energy released by the production of Silicon and Magnesium from Iron can feed the other three processes. There's a synergy of sorts working in our favor.

Considering the complexities related to alternative explanations, where elements are replaced over time rather than transmuted, I'd say we've made a pretty good case for transmutation as an important factor in fossilization.

Lightning

By Griffinstorm - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Redshift Quantization

Back in year 2000, Halton Arp held this lecture on his career as an astronomer, and his findings related to the redshift of Quasars. Of the many things he discovered and recorded back in the 1970s, two things stand out. One was the fact that some Quasars are visibly in front of objects that should be closer to us based on redshift calculations. The other thing he noted was that redshifts aren't uniformly distributed. Some redshifts are more common than others. I.e. redshifts are quantized phenomena.

These findings flew in the face of accepted theory at the time, which held that redshift is uniformly distributed and directly linked to speeds. These assumptions formed in turn the basis for the Big Bang theory, as well as many assumptions related to Black Holes. If Halton Arp's observations were to be accepted as facts, all of this would have to be reconsidered.

This was too much for many theorists to accept, so they made Halton Arp a persona non grata. Instead of considering the evidence collected by Mr. Arp, they ignored it. But the cat was out of the bag and evidence in support of Halton Arp's findings are piling up.

I was reminded of this by one of my readers (cilo) who made a comment about this on my previous post. According to him, the James Webb Space Telescope has collected more data in support of Halton Arp's findings. It appears that the phenomenon of redshift quantization is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

This means that there's something profound about the universe that current theory isn't able to explain. If we stick to the idea that redshift is purely speed related, we get that some speeds are more common than other speeds. In the context of an expanding universe, we get some distances less likely to contain objects than other distances. The universe around us becomes layered, and this is not what current theory stipulates.

Alternatively, we'll have to accept that not all redshifts are speed related, in which case we have to consider alternative hypothesises of which there are two: One is the tired light hypothesis that suggests that light becomes redder over time due to loss of energy. The other hypothesis, suggested by Halton Arp, is that matter grows more massive over time. Halton Arp called this intrinsic redshift because it says something about the age of the objects observed rather than their distance. I.e. redshifts are intrinsic to objects without regards to distances or speeds.

It should be noted that we don't have to choose one redshift or another. They may all exist together in which case we get a complex mix of factors rather than the clean sterility of conventional astrophysics where only a few variables play a role.

Having established that speed related redshifts can only be quantized if speed itself is quantized, or if matter in an expanding universe is distributed in layers around us, we can go on to consider the tired light hypothesis.

For light to tire without scatter, we require some highly fluid low energy substance to fill the universe, and since no such substance is currently considered to exist in conventional theory, tired light has been dismissed as an impossibility. But if we allow for an aether of zero-point particles we get that light may fade in energy without being scattered. We also get that the light will fade in discrete steps due to the particle nature of the aether. However, these steps are likely to be too small to be the cause of redshift quantization.

The tired light hypothesis is also unable to explain Halton Arp's observation that redshift seems to be independent of distance. Only Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift can explain this part of the puzzle. Objects become redder over time due to mass condensing onto them. But why would mass condensation happen in discrete steps sufficiently large to be noticed by astronomers?

I've proposed in my physics that mass condensation is due to a hypothesized ability of protons to absorb photons. If this is a straight forward process, a proton will grow in mass by a photon every now and again. However, this would show up as a fairly uniform process with many tiny steps. It wouldn't be the relatively large steps that have been observed, so it appears that mass condensation must be something more complex. It may be that photons build up on the surface of protons without making them noticeable larger before some threshold is reached where the photons rearrange themselves into the fabric of the protons. But here, I'm only speculating.

There's plenty of room for speculation at this point, and I'm not going to pretend I have an answer to what may be going on. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. Redshift isn't as straight forward a subject as many have made it out to be. Observations don't fit theory, and this gap between observations and theory has been around for some fifty years.

Halton Arp

By The original uploader was Reuben at English Wikipedia. - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper., CC BY 2.5, Link

Casimir Effect as Polarization

The Casimir effect is a phenomenon in which two neutral surfaces attract or repel each other when in extremely close contact. The effect has been used as evidence for the existence of a zero-point field because the magnitude of the attracting force can be calculated from quantum field formulas. However, there are other ways to calculate this force that doesn't require quantum mechanics.

This YouTube video, pointed out to me by "Escaped Serf" on Facebook, explains how the Casimir effect may be nothing more complicated than polarization of dipoles.

Polarization in this context means rearrangement of charge, which occurs naturally wherever dipoles are free to move in response to nearby charges. Polarization explains why charged surfaces always attract neutral surfaces.

Charged surfaces attracting neutral surfaces

Polarization is the mechanism behind the phenomenon of capacitance. It allows charge surfaces separated by a dielectric to store electric energy. This may in turn explain why gravity is unevenly distributed across the planet.

Uncharged and charged capacitor

Polarization also explains why dipoles align into structures where positive ends hook up to negative ends. This is how chemical bindings are produced, and the phenomenon of sticky light can also be understood in terms of dipoles.

Dipoles hooking up to make a simple structure

Dipoles exist everywhere because atoms are dipoles. There are also good reasons to suspect that photons are dipoles.

The dielectric photon

This in turn explains the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production.

Electron-positron pair production from photon

It also explains the Faraday effect in which light is polarized by magnetism.

Photons polarized by a magnet

With so many phenomena either clearly or probably due to polarization of dipoles and dielectrics, it's no surprise that Hendrik Casimir's first thought was to explain his short range attracting force in these terms.

Casimir initially believed that the force he had discovered was related to Van der Waals force. However, he found the solution unsatisfactory. The calculated force didn't exactly match what he was measuring, and the calculations were complicated. Casimir was therefore delighted to find a simpler way to calculate his force by using equations found in quantum field theory.

However, the Casimir effect will sometimes produce a repelling force, and this has to be quietly ignored for the quantum field theory explanation to hold. Van der Waals force, on the other hand, is sometimes attracting and sometimes repelling for reasons that are easily explained in terms of our current understanding of the atom.

Atomic nucleus surrounded by ten electron clouds = Neon

The electron clouds surrounding atomic nuclei repel electron clouds of other atoms in such a way that only very close contact can lead to attraction. If such close contact isn't achieved, or cannot be achieved, there will be no attraction.

All of this can be explained by Van der Waals force. But there may nevertheless be something additional going on. If we allow for an aether of zero-point particles, as suggested in my physics, we can propose situations where these particles get stuck between surfaces, thus preventing Van der Waals force to fully kick in.

Zero-point particles surrounding an electron

This would lead to real world measurements that deviate somewhat from those predicted by Van der Waals force alone, which is exactly what Hendrik Casimir discovered and frustrated him into looking for alternative explanations.