Plasma Cosmology WIKI

Rules:

The goal is to have a friendly and cooperative environment to increase our knowledge of the universe.

Do not harass people, be clear. No social engineering. Try to point out logical fallacies and biases.

Personal attacks not allowed. That includes personal attacks on Walthorn, Robitaille, etc.. Do not attack the messenger.

If you disagree with someone, make your position clear, try to use positive criticism.
By making your position clear, you can both agree to disagree.

Important Logical fallacies and bias

attack the messenger - Very often we will see attack of the messenger, not the message. Common among sceptics.
Stroman - Stroman attacks are also common. This means that the attacker proposes a wrong model, and explains why it is wrong. But it is the wrong one.
Miracle - (divine fallacy?) Often a miracle is used to explain something that we don't understand. "Give me a miracle and I will explain how the universe began".
Appeal to authority - An authority is not free from giving good explanations or from problems in his/her field. " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (R. Feynman)
Specialist bias - 99% of all astrologers agree that astrology gives useful information. This extends to all specialisations.
Instrument and Statistical bias - the instrument or methodology can cause a bias in your system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Note: wikipedia is censored and restricted to mainstream ideas.

Some examples for criticism:

1) From my background in EM, I don't think magnetic reconnection is a valid theory. Field-lines officially do not exist.
(I make my position clear, and show the main problem with the theory).

2) Based on experiments and basic physics, I think that Kirchhoff's Law is false. See these videos (Robitaille). (I make my position clear, the video shows what the problems are with the law. It is an overgeneralization.)

3) I think that the big bang is false, because I can not imagine that something just comes out of nothing. Can you explain how a whole universe comes out of nothing, as we could use it for free energy?
(while I make the idea a bit ridiculous, I make my position clear that I find the big bang model not very logical.)

---

Main differences with Gravity Cosmology and Plasma Cosmology

The effect of Plasma

Plasma has more influence on the observations.
Sometimes it can be concentrated around a star like the sun.

Below I will explain that it may cause dark energy or maybe even all redshifts.

The presence of electric currents

Due to electric fields and magnetism, electric currents will follow.
The mainstream already sees a lot of magnetism in galaxies and energetic objects.
This is only possible when we have strong electric currents.

The presence of electric charges or fields

For electric currents to exist, we need to have strong electric charges.
Or strong electric fields.

Electric Fields Do Exist In Plasma

Due to historical mistakes, the mainstream has denied the existence of electric fields in plasma.
A lot of the theories and maths are based on it.
The presence of any electrical field breaks with many mainstream theories.

But in practice, in space and in the laboratory, electric fields do exist. Even very strong ones. See the safire project
Strong ones exist in double layers ) where the electrons are all used up.

Note: This already breaks mainstream theories.

Thermodynamics

Many astronomy theories break the laws of thermodynamics.
The big bang theory produces energy and matter out of nothing.
The mainstream sun is hotter on the outside than on the inside.
Plasmacosmology recognizes that these theories break important laws of physics, and has alternatives.

Oversimplifications

Many mainstream theories have used oversimplifications of very complex phenomena, these could be sources of major errors.
Plasma is a very complex state of matter, but also are stars and galaxies very complex.
By looking at the theories from a plasma and electrical perspective, things can suddenly look very different.

Adding invisible things

Mainstream theories like to stay and so their models are often reused with added variables.
These added variables show in many invisible things that are added to the astronomy. Many scientists pretend that the problems are simply solved with this new invisible thing.

In plasma cosmology "invisible things" mean that we don't know yet.
And that maybe we need to reconsider the original theory for which we need it.

Where are the formulas and calculations?

Plasma cosmology is based on proven science from the laboratory.
So we use all known and well tested formulas.
With that we can calculate everything.

But we also have removed some over-simplifications. This means that certain calculations become much more difficult.
Plasma is much harder to calculate if you use realistic physics.
So you have electrical fields and double layers, etc.

Often we find false models used by the mainstream, which have been used again to interpret and present certain observations. This means that we can not always rely on the observations of the mainstream.

Some things are not fully researched or checked by the mainstream.
Usually things related with electric fields or currents.
- Electric fields and double layers in plasma.
- Electrochemical processes in space.
- Electric fields in biology or chemistry.

Artistic impressions and bias

Astronomy has a problem of things being very far away. The observations are tiny and full with noise and instrumental errors.
So astronomy makes a lot of guesses of what these very distant things actually are.
In many pictures a lot of data is filled in by artists or statistics. Often these are used to demonstrate a certain model. Or they are used for education.

The mainstream is also a fan of holding on to old theories, even when some new observations are breaking.
They try to keep up with the sciences that can do experiments in laboratories.
This gives a very strong bias in this field of science.
And if you try to criticize it, the scientists fall back to educating the critic instead of re-investigating their own theory.
After each breaking observation all theories that depend on it should be questioned.
Yet, it is easier to attack the messenger and add more invisible variables to the models.

This is stopping the progress of science.

---

The unscientific and unprofessional behaviour of mainstream scientists

Placeholder.
I think Monanza can write books about this.

---

Basic Physics: Observations and Principles

History

The models of the sun and the universe have changed quite a bit. There are some different electrical sun models, as well as different big bang models.

In discussions we often mix models with historical variations, and that can sometimes create a strawman.
All models change in time.

Old wiki at:
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com

How does electromagnetism work

Electromagnetism See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

If you want to learn the practice you can study these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtlJoXxlSFE&list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j

Simply put:

Electric charges are attracted opposite electric charges. An electric charges creates an "electric field".
Fields are continuous and have no lines, we only use field-lines to describe them.
Electric fields can create currents.
Currents create magnetic fields.
Moving electric charges are "curved" by magnetic fields.
Magnetic fields attract/repel each other.
Changing magnetic fields create electric fields.
Electromagnetic waves move with the speed of light.

If you don't know how this works, please do some study of the videos.

How strong are electric interactions related to distance?

Strength of Electric fields are 1/r²
Strength of Electric dipole and electric charge are 1/r³
Strength of 2 dipoles have a 1/r⁴ strength with each other
Strength of Electric currents are 1/r, as the resistance grows about equal with distance.
Strength of Electric plasma charges do not reduce in distance, that is why solar flares can be devastating.
Strength of Birkeland currents are now estimated in the order of 1/r^0.5, as it is a combination of both current and charged plasma.

How are field-lines formed in materials?

Magnetic field lines: https://imgur.com/gallery/FmVbQQd
Electrical field lines: https://imgur.com/a/AqRFR

The material contains small particles iron for magnets, seeds for electric.
If the particles react to the fields, they become polarized. One side becomes positive (or North) the other side negative (or South).
They align themselves to the direction of the external field.
But they all align in the same direction. The same polarity attracts and inverse polarity repels. So a particle attracts particles that are in line with it (above/below it).
And repels particles that are next to it.

How does plasma react

Plasma is highly conductive, and has a certain amount of free electrons and free ions in it.

The positive and negative particles will move into the direction of the electric field.
They do not move when only a constant magnetic field is present.
But when they move through plasma, the particles form a circle-like path.
see video
The plasma is also slowed down by the magnetic field.

Plasma can also form double layers.
Here is a video showing all variations:
https://imgur.com/a/xmIDQ6f

Weak electric currents are invisible in plasma, we call it dark mode currents.
Strong electric currents become visible as lines.
Very strong electric currents become very radiant.

Basics of thermodynamics

Robitaille has a good list on thermodynamics.
SkyScholar - Thermodynamics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Basics of special relativity

Relativity deals with the problem of what happens when two objects move near the speed of light.

Relativity was discovered via the laws of Maxwell, but they do not work well when you apply them at those speeds. With relativity, the electric force also includes the magnetic force.

This image shows how a an accelerating particle causes a EM-wave
The relativity version is not shown. There are still open questions about it.
But it is simple: 1- The strength of the electric force reduces with the path that it needs to follow.
2 -The direction of the electric force-vector becomes dependent of the speed of the object.
So it points away from the direction that the object will be in if it moves with the same speed.
For non-relativistic speeds, it produces a force that is similar to a direct electric and magnetic force.
With relativistic speeds particles do not affect each other so much.

Einstein (and others) found out that you can have a constant speed of light by changing the clock-speed of an object depending on its speed.
And by changing its length depending on its speed. (In the direction of its movement.)
And with that solution, one can predict the physics of very fast particles.

According to Einstein the change of clock-speed relates directly to the actual time of the object.
For this he added a time-dimension.

Why relativity?
In many observations we see that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer. In many tests we see that light works this way.

We can also see it in practical way:
Relativity compensates the directions and strengths of the forces for the movement of the objects,
and the slowness of the field.
Without relativity or without the magnetic force, a group of protons can push each other when moving.
As the repelling force would come from behind.
This would cause the protons to be pushed forward faster and faster.

The special relativity theory is accepted within Plasma Cosmology, but we like to discuss it.

Possible problems with this theory will be explained later

Basics of Kirchhoff's black body radiation

Kirchhoff's law is only valid for very limited circumstances.

Robitaille explains and demonstrates in his videos that Kirchhoff's law is invalid:
See videos here

In short: he explains that the law is only valid of graphite, a substance that is used by the scientists to demonstrate this law. It does not work for most other things.
It even conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics.
Examples: hydrogen gas only emits radiation on certain bands.
A diode emits radiation mainly in one frequency.

This causes quite some errors in astronomy, where a the black-body curve is used a lot.
Usually because little other information is available.
They use it to measure temperatures of gasses, redshifts and such.
But with the black body curve they come to the wrong conclusions.

So how can it not work, while quantum mechanics is derived from it?
Planck used the law to show that light was transmitted in quanta.
That is because each electron-jump transmits EM-radiation. And by limiting the jumps to fixed positions, the electrons can only jump a limited amount of ways. And this limitation gives us the black-body curve.
This works when there are a lot of fixed positions, which is true in graphite. Especially because it is also conductive.
It is not true when there are just a few positions, like in a gas.
It can also happen in any system that has many electron-positions and is highly conductive. But it's temperature dependency can be different.

So, if you bring it back to it's basics, we can easily see why it is often wrong to use the black body curve.

Basics of gravity

Plasma cosmology supports both Einstein's general relativity and Newton's gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Gravity depends on the mass of an object.
So it's weight is directly related to mass.

Einstein used the parallel between acceleration and gravity.
And with time as a dimension, Einstein constructed a Tensor formula that describes the acceleration in a gravitational field.
Oversimplified: A Tensor is extra-dimensional "Vector".
With that formula the time and space around a mass is affected in such a way that we
get acceleration towards a mass.

To compensate for the loss of energy, he added a lambda parameter. This is later being used in the big-bang formula.

Plasma cosmology can work with any version of general relativity, even with the big-bang. But it offers an alternative to the redshift, as now plasma can affect the light in many ways.
The observations need to be adjusted to the presence of plasma.

Possible problems with this theory will be explained later

Note: Plasma cosmology does not have any good alternatives yet.
Note2: Electrogravity is not compatible with known electromagnetism.

Basics of Stars/ Planets/ Comets

Plasma cosmology explores alternative origins for the basic objects.

• Stars

See also the part on the sun.

Stars can be investigated from their spectra, which can tell us about what they are built of.

The mainstream theory is that the stars from blobs of gas, that compress due to gravity.
After high pressure the stars start to ignite with nuclear reactions.

In plasma cosmology stars are likely formed out of plasma by electromagnetic fields.
These electric forces compress the plasma at certain places, maybe even starting some nuclear reactions.
This idea seems supported as we see a lot of electromagnetic activity where new stars form.
And we can sometimes see nuclear explosions on the surface of the sun.

We are open to alternative evolution ideas.

• Planets

The mainstream believes that the planets are formed from gravity with the dust and gas that shaped the star.
In this model an accretion disk collects the material in different blobs that collide with each other.
They assume that the accretion disk sorts the material in a certain way, causing differences between planets.

In plasma cosmology the electromagnetic forces collect the material for the planets.
They also align the rotation of the planets and moons and stabilize their orbits.
Planets can be formed out of burned up stars.

• Comets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tail

The mainstream believes that the comets come from the outer parts of the accretion disk and that they are made of different material. In this case mostly water.
The tails of the comet are related to water becoming steam and following the comet around.
The direction of the tails depend on the solar wind.
The comet theory is also used to explain the abundance of water on earth.
Yet after comet landings it is now clear that water can not come from the comets: hardly any water has been found and the water is the wrong type (isotopes). The comet tails are also rising when they are too far away for water to vaporize.

In plasma cosmology the origin of comets can be the same as planets.
The solar wind and plasma cause electrochemical processes and erosion on the comet.
Oxides on the comet can react with protons of the solar wind and form water.
Also other electrochemical reactions can take place.
This has been observed too.
Because the solar wind is different depending on the direction of the solar plane, the comet can encounter different charged solar winds.
This can cause rock like objects or planets like Pluto to produce some kind of comet-tail. Different tails are be caused by different materials.

---

The sun

Astronomy already fails at the first star

The amount of provable failures is now 8.

FAIL: Magnetic Reconnection REALITY: Bad Physics

This solar astronomy is incompatible with laws of electromagnetism, and does not know what fields are.

Magnetic reconnection is based on the ideas:
1) that magnetic fields are made out of magnetic field lines,
2) that these lines can also collide with each other,
3) that these collisions can produce any energy.

This would mean that we should see small explosions everywhere on Earth, as all antennas produce many colliding magnetic field lines.

But why do they think this way..

The idea is based on the observations of plasma-ropes on the sun.
When these plasma-lines collide they produce a lot of energy, sometimes even explosions.
They are even called "magnetic flux lines", because the astronomers actually think that plasma follows magnetism in that sense.

But we can already know from laboratory experiments that plasma does not follow magnetism. It turns around it instead, because it would form a homopolar motor.
https://imgur.com/a/xmIDQ6f
If the plasma is static, it does not do anything at all.
In plasma containment magnetic fields, the fields are aligned in a very special way, otherwise it does not work.

All of this has nothing to do with magnetism.

If we look better at the plasma ropes on the sun, we can see that there are some currents in them. So we can assume that they transport electric currents, like we see in laboratory, or in a plasma ball.

And if 2 currents connect, we get an electrical short cut. Which can indeed be very energetic, even on earth. This all fits all observations of solar plasma ropes.

So what we are seeing is not magnetic field lines connecting, but electric currents connecting.

FAIL: Magnetohydrodynamics. REALITY: There are electric fields in plasma

If you look at the mainstream theories behind the sun and plasma, you can find that they often use magnetohydrodynamics. This could means "plasma flows like water and magnets".

This theory was developed by Alfven and he got a noble prize for it.
At the acceptance speech he also warned that it should only be used in very special circumstances. Yet, astronomers just use this theory everywhere.

The theory is based upon the idea that there are no electric fields in plasma.
It is an oversimplification. But also in reality there are electrical fields in plasma. And electrical fields can be very strong in double plasma layers.
So we can not use this theory at all.

FAIL: Only Zeeman effect. REALITY: much is Stark effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Due to the above assertion that there are no electrical fields in plasma, the astronomy community never really thought that it was possible to have such electrical fields. Even strong ones. This shows a misunderstanding of both plasma and Alfven.

See this video to learn about Zeeman effect.
Zeeman discovered in 1896 that the the spectrum of of gas split reacted to magnetic fields. Almost each spectral line splitted into 2 lines. He got a noble prize for it.

Soon the scientists found that the sun showed very strong line-splitting in the dark spots of the sun. Since then all astronomers assume that the dark spots have very strong magnetic fields.

Video on Stark effect
Many years later in 1913 Stark found a very similar effect for Electric fields.
This means that the sun spots can have very strong electric fields.
But at that time the astronomers, forgetting about Alfven's warning, had already decided that there could be nor electrical fields on the sun.

Due to this historical mistake and specialist bias, there has not really been an investigation in the electrical nature of the solar spots.

Yet, it fits much better.

For flares to be magnetic, we have this paper that shows that there are huge errors between the calculations and the observed values. In the order of 10^6.
Rethinking the solar flare paradigm - Melrose

For sunspots to be magnetic, we need very strong electrical ring currents. We have never observed those huge currents.
The currents must be of the order of 10¹⁰ ampere.
Note that the other magnetism on the sun is irrelevant, because we only see this strong magnetism at the sunspots.

For this I calculate the current needed to sustain a magnetic field of an Earth-sized sunspot.
The observed Zeeman splitting show a continuous field of 0.1 Tesla. With a formula online you can calculate the circular current that you need. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/curloo.html
So you get 10¹⁰ amps current. Which is immense, yet never observed.

The same zeeman splitting can also be seen as Stark splitting.
By looking at the wikipedia page for Zeeman splitting we can see the Zeeman splitting of 0.1 Tesla.
And put this same splitting in the table for Stark splitting.
The table's axis is very different, but I assume that the splitting is about the same.
And it seems that 100k V/m (1000 V/cm in table) corresponds with 0.1 Tesla. This seems huge for plasma, but I think it is still possible on double layers and surfaces.

The splitting is slightly different.
This may cause inversions of the "observed" magnetic fields, which we often see.

The plasma currents go from sunspot to sunspot.
Something that is really likely when the sunspot have different electrical charges, with different electrical fields. Electrical fields with a similar effect are of the order of 10 kilovolts.
Which is similar to what we can observe in plasma in double layers.

So the only valid explanation is that the strong effects are caused by plasma double layers.

With polarisation and such we can also measure magnetic fields, but often these methods have very similar outcomes in electric fields.

We certainly need to consider strong electric fields in plasma and not just ignore them.

Simple electrical model explains plasma ropes, sunspots, dark areas

Plasma currents on the sun
Stark effect on the sun

The electrical model becomes very simple if we recognize these electrical fields.

Electric currents go from positive to negative charged areas, and these areas can be detected when they are close to a surface and have double layers. Now plasma ropes are simply shaped by the currents.

Sometimes parallel currents can form, probably due to double layers. The plasma ropes do form circular shapes, and this means that they are affected by their own magnetism. Sometimes these semi-circles or arches can be very stable. This means that there is no other magnetism present.

Dark sun-spots are simply areas of the sun where the electrical field is very strong. In laboratory strong fields can cause electrons to go free, and they absorb much of the light.

Dark areas are large areas on the sun where certain atoms/ions are less present. These are simply areas where the electrical field is slightly different.

When two electric currents short cut, or get overloaded we can get a lot of energy. And this can cause a solar flare, expelling the plasma above the shortcut into space.

With the strong electrical fields and strong electric currents it is also possible to get Nuclear fusion.
Focus fusion is fusion based on electrical currents

All this is simple and with known physics.
So this model wins with Occham, Maxwell and Alfven.

Some discussions and info at Thunderbolts forums: There is a lot of information here that is not shown in this wiki.
discussion: Solar Flare and Electromagnetism and "magnetic reconnection"
discussion: Magnetic Reconnection

FAIL: Gaseous plasma Sun REALITY: Sun has condensed matter (fluid/solid)

SkyScholar (Robitaille).
History of the Gaseous Sun
Is the Sun a Gas? The standard model explained.
The Sun is NOT a Gaseous Plasma! The LMH Solar Model
The Sun is Not Hollow! Solar Collapse, the Core, Density, and the Tachocline Layer

FAIL: Sun has no surface REALITY: The sun has a surface

SkyScholar (Robitaille).
Does the sun have a surface? Transverse waves, Helioseismology, CMEs, X-Rays and Flares
Does the sun have a surface? Solar tornadoes, Radius, Oblateness, and Different Rotation!

FAIL: Sun breaks basic laws of thermodynamics REALITY: Sun temperature is different

SkyScholar (Robitaille).
Is the Corona at MILLIONS of degrees?
The Chromosphere: COLDER than you thought! Evidence from Carbon Monoxide Absorption Lines!

Fraunhofe Lines and Condensed Matter - Even Kirchhoff Agreed
Chemical Reactions in the Chromosphere of the Sun!

FAIL: Sun's corona has very low pressure REALITY: Pressure is much higher

The Chromosphere and Corona!

This also means that the plasma of the sun extends much farther than the mainstream claims.

This is visible in the solar eclipse.

This may affect some phenomena:
It can influence the stars that are viewed through the plasma and shift their positions towards the sun via refraction. It can also cause a plasma connection with the inner planet and maybe influence their orbit a bit.
Both are now fully attributed to General relativity. Maybe it needs some recalibration?

FAIL: No chemistry REALITY: Sun shows chemical reactions

Robitaille shows good evidence for chemcial reactions on the Sun, which are visible in the Chromospheric Spectral Lines

Chemical Reactions, the Periodic Table, and the Chromosphere

Two Electron Transitions in the Chromosphere

Configuration of solar plasma

Actual Solar magnetic field

From the solar-eclipse image we can see the solar magnetic field clearly. It is a global field that extends widely.

Solar wind

The surface of the sun is glowing continuously. And according to plasma-cosmology there are electrons flowing through plasma on the sun. And just like on earth, this causes X-rays and creates the sun's corona. Because the mainstream ignore the electrical part, they have invented all kinds of weird theories to explain the simple testable phenomenon of x-rays.

Due to the strong radiation, the plasma also gets expelled from the sun. This causes the solar wind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Image
We can see that the solar wind is very different, depending on the direction. It is almost absent in the equator, which is also the solar system plane. And it is mostly in the direction above and below the solar system plane.

External solar electric configuration

There are different theories in how the sun's plasma is configured.

See: Bob Johnson: The electric sun revisited

He explains different electrical circuits:
1) Alfvén's Circuit - The electricity goes out of the north and south pole of the sun and returns towards the sun in the planetary plane. Due to a capacitor it reverses.
2) Juergens' Current - The Sun is charged and an anode, and deep in space is a cathode.
3) Don Scott's Model - Current goes into the poles of the sun, and cycles a lot. Goes out in the planetary plane. Note: Likely based on the idea that the sun was very magnetic.

It seems to me that there is a solar-system sized current that has 2 polarities mainly in the form of the solar wind. The solar system plane has a different polarity than the wind above and below the plane. This creates Alfven's circuit on very large scale.

Birkeland: currents, aurora and planeterella

With a different polarity of the solar-system plane and there are possibilities for currents to flow from above/below the plane towards the planets in the plane. This can create auroras, when the currents are strong enough. This happens always after solar flares or solar storms.

To demonstrate this Birkeland has a build a Planeterrella. It shows the aurora, which position depends on the magnetic field. It also shows a glowing electric sun.

Due to the aurora's we can see that there really is an electrical connection between the sun and the earth. This connection carries charge and is called Birkeland current. Some of this electrical connection can be continuous, but invisible due to the low intensity.

To model the currents in plasma, Donald Scott has proposed a model. See this video. And in this model the current, which is also ejected plasma behaves like plasma ropes with 2 charges that circles around each other. If I may correct it a bit, the auroras look more like cloths that are circling around each other. But that difference does not change the model too much.

According to Scott the strength of this current declines very slow, about 1/sqrt(R). Which means that the distance from the sun does not reduce the strength of the charge very much. So the electric energy that we receive on earth can be in the same order as the energy on the sun's surface. Which is huge.

Due to this enormous energy connection, we can understand why the sun often knocks out satellite's. It can also cause other problems on the earth's surface.

Solar system - Planets and comets

FAIL: The "ice" comet REALITY: It's a rock

I wrote about the comet above already.

As we can see from the solar wind, we know that the polarity can change a bit above/below or inside the solar plane. This can cause charge differences and differences in solar wind as object move through these areas.

And such objects are (almost) always comets.

So in plasma-cosmology it does not matter what is moving in these areas. They will get exposed by much solar wind and become part of a plasma current. This also starts electro-chemical reactions and electro-chemical erosion. This gives the comet a very eroded surface, as we see.

This current gets stronger, especially if the object releases dust or ions. It is not really dependent on temperature, but on the solar wind. This can start on long distances, especially during solar storms. Which we also observe.

The comets do not contain much water. That is not needed, except to maintain the false idea of an oort-cloud. And this Oort cloud came from the idea of a accretion disk, where light elements would stay outside of the solar system, when other heavier elements form planets inside the solar system.

FAIL: Accretion disk REALITY: Electric plasma

From pictures of new-born stars or new-born solar systems, we can see that there are not really accretion disks. But the mainstream likes to pretend there are.

In reality we see plasma in circular shapes, with plasma connections towards some kind of star in the centre.

This plasma does not form these shapes just by gravity, that is not how gravity works. But it is exactly how electric plasma works.

If we assume the electrical configuration, similar to the sun, we will have plasma wind and plasma currents going all around the planetary system. The electric charges and currents will collect the plasma into blobs. And these blobs will slowly form the solar system.

The rotation in one plane (incl. rings)

The plasma currents and electrical winds will cause the planetary system to be in line with the currents and winds. This means that the planetary system will likely be in one plane. And all moons and rings will also likely be in one plane.

This also means that there is likely no Oort-cloud with icy bodies.

The electrical plasma can deposit different kinds of material at different places, which can explain the differences in the planets and moons. But because the plasma guides the forming of planets and moons, it may also help to capture planets or moons. It is more flexible than gravity.

This is all so much simpler than gravity alone.

connection between sun and planets

With plasma currents and electrical winds connecting the sun and the planets, we now can look at how it affects the planets besides auroras.

The interesting connections are:

magnetic dipoles | 1/R⁴ | almost nothing (mainstream) electric current | 1/R | Weather, wind, lightning Birkeland current | 1/sqrt(R) | aurora, jet-stream, storms solar flare | 1/1 (almost no reduction) | earthquakes, hurricanes,
solar mega flare | 1/1 (almost no reduction) | extinction?

So each level becomes stronger.

A lot of this is reported by https://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
Where the statistical connection between the sun and Earth's weather and earthquakes are explained.

Sadly, it usually states the mainstream theory of magnetic connections between earth and sun.
And this is of course too weak.
The website does report direct correlations with solar flares and earthquakes and hurricanes.
It is very good at predicting the timing and strength of major earthquakes.
It explains how electric charges from flares cause currents into earth, which then cause the earth to move.
The size and position of such flare has a direct relationship with the position and strength of the earthquake.

Ancient cataclysms

With solar mega flares we can get huge problems on earth.
In ancient times these might have caused huge destructions on earth.
Some can be related to mythology.

There are also theories about huge birkeland currents, that very likely existed In the beginning of the formation of the solar system. As in plasmacosmology electromagnetic forces help shape the planetary systems and the planets.
These birkeland currents can have shaped mountains and/or eroded valleys.
Especially on mars we see long lines of erosion. Besides water (or CO2) the electric or electrochemical erosion by strong birkeland currents can have devastating effects.

Galaxies:

The Milky Way

The centre of the milky way shows electromagnetic field lines.
link
image
The plank satellite also shows the electromagnetic fields around the milky way unintentionally.
link
image
(I am sorry if I am used processed images, it is hard to get the raw originals.)

Plank: Electromagnetic fields along galactic plane
At least they got it a bit right.
Note that they ignore any electric fields, currents or charges. This is the mainstream astronomy after all.
Also the image is likely influenced by the solar electromagnetic phenomena.
With that extra stuff, we can fill the complete image, and have almost no "background" left.

• EVIDENCE: "Magnetic" galaxies
  

Most galaxies are very "magnetic". link
Even our own milky way (see above links).
According to the mainstream: "The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery".
But in basic electromagnetism we know: magnetic fields come from electric currents.
Pff. Why is it so hard to see the obvious?
And electric currents come from electric fields.
In plasma cosmology, basic logic can be applied.

But because the mainstream ignores most of the electric fields, this aspect of galaxies is mostly unknown.
As electric fields are considered impossible in the astronomy books, but are found in laboratory and space.
Most "magnetic" fields in galaxies and space are found via Zeeman splitting and polarisation changes.
But similar effects are also present in electrical field. And for magnetic fields to exist, there must be electrical fields. Is the electrical field dominant as we have concluded about the sun? Or is it mostly magnetic?

On those large scales it is hard to see the dynamics to differentiate exactly. But in certain examples it seems more likely that one or the other is dominant.

The electromagnetic fields will affect the plasma in the galaxy.
There are some different ways how this can happen, but it will have the following characteristics:

• Shapes of filaments where plasma currents are flowing

• Star formation where plasma is concentrated

• Spiral shapes or circular shapes where magnetic fields are active.

• Beam like structures of high velocity currents.

• EVIDENCE: Galactic wind / Interstellar wind

Eleven Spacecraft Show Interstellar Wind Changed Direction Over 40 Years
Galactic wind connects galaxies
In plasma cosmology the winds are dependent on electromagnetic fields.
So it is very logical for them to change quickly or to be connected with other galaxies.

• EVIDENCE: "Galactic Halo"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_halo
The ionized part is called the Galactic Corona.
Also we have Giant gas cloud surrounding the milky way link.
It is as if the plasma is expanding to all sides of a galaxy.
There it may still be ionized (corona), or become neutral (gas like).

• EVIDENCE: "Fermi bubbles"

See link
Fermi bubbles are huge sphere shaped spheres above and below the galactic plane.
Logically they will be there if the plane has a slightly

• EVIDENCE: Particle jets / beams.

They are often found in the galaxy, and the mainstream calls the sources of these "black holes".
Some examples:
Radio Galaxy Herculus A hi-res
This "supermassive black hole" emits a beam of particles three times longer than the milkyway.
Black holes are objects in space where no matter can escape from.. Oh wait..
Well, in plasmacosmology we can have electrical fields. And these are very capable of continuous ejecting beams of matter.
For beams they need some kind of magnetic field, which they can even produce themselves.
The energy that produces these beams is another question. In the mainstream they think it comes from matter that disappears in black holes.
In plasma cosmology we can also use common nuclear fusion reactions, as those are enough to eject the material.
The electromagnetic spectrum of the emitter comes from the electrons in the electromagnetic fields, which in our laboratory can produce anything from Radio-waves to very strong X-rays.

• FAIL: Old stars outside, young stars inside

The mainstream model for galaxy formation starts with a huge accretion disk that slowly formed stars.
In the center there should be a black hole, and very old stars around it. In the outside, there is less matter in the accretion disk so the stars are formed much later.
This also happeend twice according to LDCM as it states that heavy metals were produced by super novas.

In reality we see that the older stars are on the outside, and many young stars on the inside. This means that the galaxy formation is reversed some way.
The oldest star of the milky way (or universe), is very near earth for example.

There are also new stars formed in the galaxy arms.

• FAIL: Ellipses cause Spirals in galaxies.

The mainstream explanation for galaxy arms is a gradual shift in the elleptic orbits of the stars.
It is clearly an oversimplification.
There is no explanation for these shifts, nor is the rotation modelled in a correct way.

So we really need to address the matter of star movements in galaxies.

• FAIL: "Dark matter". Star movements in galaxies.

Dark matter:
Again we have an oversimplification.
Stars are modelled to move around the center. And if we look at the speeds from far away, we can see that the speeds are similar on different distances from the center of the galaxies.
And this means that the stars are moving too fast... in this model.

While searching in our milky way, tracking every star, we have not seen any evidence for "dark matter" yet.

Stars circle around bigger stars, and these circle around bigger stars again.
Circles around circles around circles is can form a Hilbert curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_curve
This is a system that fills all space equally. Also the average speed is somehwat equal around the curve.

So if we have stars rotating around stars a few times over, we get somewhere near an equal space filling of a galaxy. And this also gives us a nearly constant speed.
So maybe this already fixes our need for much of the dark matter.

There are also alternative orbit ideas, where the stars form an elleptical path in galaxies.
And this also removes the need for dark matter.

So the way the stars move inside the galaxy is essential to understand more about this phenomenon. And that can already solve the problem.

Dark matter is also used to speed up the galaxy formations for LCDM, but that is a whole other matter entirely.

Plasma cosmology solutions

On /r/thunderbolts I will (soon) explore other alternatives.

We must correct the star orbits a bit, because they are not all in the same plane (2D).
And with that we automatically get different structures in 3 dimensions.

In plasma cosmology we recognize that there are also electromagnetic forces present that alter the orbits slightly. These forces can align the stars at certain positions, which then cause the spiral arms.

And because the electromagnetic forces can still be strong at large distances, due to the 1/R relationship of electric currents, the stars can be more attracted to the paths where most electric currents are flowing.

There is also a lot of invisible plasma inside the galaxy, which may add to extra mass.

Donald Scott's model
Scott models the spiral arms as places where electric currents and birkeland currents are flowing.
This means that the stars in the galaxy arms are attracted towards the center and each other much more than other stars. This can allow for higher star speeds all over the galaxy spiral arms.

The currents can also compress plasma and form places where stars are formed.
This is indeed what we see in galaxy arms: it is usually a place where stars are formed.

• Plasma: Bringing it all together.
  

The theory that I find the most likely

There are currents flowing in the arms of the galaxies, forming stars. These form the observed electromagnetic fields.
There are also electrical fields, but it is hard to identify where they are exactly.

The currents and orbit-configuration together cause a constant speed of the visible stars of galaxies.

The charged matter goes to the outside and form the galaxy corona, which then slowly becomes neutralized as gas.

The fermi-bubbles are formed in a similar way, but this can also attract new matter from outside the galaxy, which is then
recycled into the galaxy all over again.

Instead of circling to the center, the matter is slowly moving to the outside. This explains why we see very old stars on the outside of the galaxies.

The Universe

In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded - Terry Pratchett

In the latest LCDM big bang theory, everything even exploded twice. The second time there are exploding supernovas that are necessary to produce the heavy elements in this theory. This theory is surpassed by the popular multiverse theory, that claims that the nothing exploded in (almost?) infinite realities and universes.

The big bang theory became very popular, and just few people dear to question it. But its basis is very empty. Everything came from nothing. And this makes sane people question this theory. This includes Hubble.

To make the theory possible all known laws of physics are dropped and replaced with wild science-fiction theories to explain such a creation event.

Instead of science fiction, plasma physics also looks at alternative explanations that can explain the observed phenomena. While it is possible that everything came from somewhere unknown, each step of the process should be verifiable. As that is the basis for science.
Give me one miracle and I can explain anything, is not a good basis for solid science.

Plasma cosmology can work with or without the big bang. Even with an eternal and static universe.

FAIL Redshift=expansion REALITY Redshift has many causes

• Halton Arp: Quasars are near galaxies

Other astronomers have repeated the observations of Halton Arp.

Many of his observations showed that quasars are near galaxies.
And this while they had very different redshifts. The quasars often had very high redshifts, compared to the galaxies.
Form this Arp formed theories about how quasars were generated from the galaxies and followed certain states until they formed mini-galaxies.

To explain the redshift Arp noticed that in the beginning state the quasars had very high redshifts. He thought that it might be matter that was created into our reality in some way, and that caused the redshifts.
Alternatively it might be very strong electromagnetic fields, as they may cause weird shifts in the spectra due to the Stark/Zeeman effects.

• Plasma redshift in laboratory

In the laboratory we can observe that plasma redshifts the light.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
scienceDirect Link

From this effect we can conclude that plasma does influence redshifts, but we do not know how much exactly.
It may explain all redshift or only the quasars or the dark energy.
It is certainly an interesting direction of research, again fully ignored by mainstream.

• Plasma Redshift - Brynjolfsson

List of papers Brynjolfsson explains how all plasma redshift can explain almost all of cosmology.

• Retransmission redshift

The shifting can be caused by absorption and re-emission.
This also makes images a bit vague.
As many far away images are indeed vague, like blobs, this may indeed be a cause for redshift.
This is similar to your table resonating with the sound of your stereo.
So it is also likely that many far away objects have been misidentified due to this effect.

• Push redshift

The shifting is likely due to non-linear effects, when light loses energy when it pushes plasma forward. The change is non-linear. With that I mean that the incoming wave-frequency is higher
than the outgoing wave frequency.

This can cause the light to be temporary out of sync, causing weird glytches.
Like changes in the intensity of the light.

This is a bit similar to hearing sounds in the fog or under water.

• Measurement of redshift via black body curve.
  

Most astronomers believe holy in the black body radiation curve.
While we have already shown this to be faulty, as it only works for certain materials.
By averaging different light effects, the spectrum can hide what is really going on.
This can give a wrong impression of certain redshifts when we have no spectral lines visible.

• Stark/Zeeman redshift or similar

The transmitter shifts the light into both directions, due to strong electromagnetic fields.
This is due to the Stark and Zeeman effect.
I see this as a possibility for Arp's redshift of quasars.
Higher frequencies will be absorbed by surrounding material quickly, while the lower frequencies may come through. This works well when astronomers rely on the black-body spectrum to determine the redshift.

• "Tired photons"
  

There are many other variations of redshift theories, often named "tired photons". Some more links:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

EVIDENCE: Map of dark energy.

This link shows how the dark energy is distributed in the universe, according to mainstream:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/07/14/record-breaking-map-1-2-million-galaxies/

If we translate it to it's basics:
This map shows where the redshift is different in the universe.
And this map shows plasma like structures.
So, we can conclude just from this map that plasma is a likely cause for dark energy.

FAIL: The cosmic microwave background REALITY: Earth's microwave background

The cosmic microwave background has been used as evidence for the big bang.

As measurements from earth show a black-body like radiation that is very much in the low microwave frequencies. After shifting the frequencies of the microwaves, we can find a black body that corresponds with a certain temperature and a certain red-shift.
This black-body radiation is theorized to come from the first state of matter in the universe. Astronomers think that it happened during the creation of hydrogen.

But with that they ignore that hydrogen gas (and most plasma) does not have a black body spectrum.

The biggest problem is that outside earth's influence, there is no microwave background any more.

With the Planck satellite we get much less microwave background (almost nothing), compared to the WMAP satellite. And it also produced much less microwave background signal than the sensors on earth. So the microwave "background" does not come from space. It comes from earth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

How is that possible?

Water...

Robitaille already proposes the problem that water can produce very similar spectra, due to its dielectric properties and molecular bounds.
While the spectrum of water is slightly different per temperature, we can see that we have different layers of water around earth, with different temperatures and different states (solid/ fluid/ gas).
If we add them all together, we get many different frequencies together, which together logically forms something very close to a black body spectrum. But shifted towards low temperature, as we have dielectric and molecular bounds instead.

Robitaille emphasizes this point by showing that the microwaves were received better near bodies of water.

There are also other influences possible.
Is plasma cosmology we have electrical currents, and Birkeland currents that continuously connect the earth with the sun. This is likely to produce a stable microwave radiation.
Plasma cosmology also sees interstellar sparse plasma as a possible source for radio-waves. But this option is not valid as we do not even see the microwave "background" if we are outside the earth's influence.

How is that possible to mistake these signals?

The signals are very weak. So astronomers have used a lot of tricks to strengthen these signals.
But the instruments, the environment (water) and the statistical processing techniques create a signal that seems stable.
But from the analyses you can see that the astronomers strengthen the noise by subtracting the images containing signal. Additionally they used filters and resolution changes that transformed that noise to systematic errors. Systematic errors that look like a microwave background. They wanted to produce the microwave background that they assumed that was there. These are student level mistakes, probably caused by PhD's trying to finish their papers, or scientists trying to save their careers.

Now let's look at the full plank image (link), what do we see?

We can now see the electromagnetic field of the milky way.
Sadly this is mostly ignored by astronomers, as they expected background radiation, not foreground electromagnetic field.

And what is left when we remove the milky-way?
- Almost nothing, mostly point sources.
And after filtering and removing signal, pretending we remove the milky-way, we get an image full with noise and disturbances.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/02/Polarisation_of_the_Cosmic_Microwave_Background_finer_detail
And this is what is the "cosmic background radiation"
In this case it is radiation of the milky way.

Why do many astronomers not see this mistake?

On earth there seems a stable background signal.
On basis on that the theory has formed that there is a signal in space.
And this theory has become a fixed idea.
So now when there is not really a signal, the astronomers do not even think that there is a mistake with their theory. They just bend the data in such a way that it fits their expectations. And that way they also get accepted by the community that believes the same.

FAIL: Pulsars, the beacons of the universe, show no time-delation

See article: Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

This observation alone means that the universe is NOT expanding.

EQUAL: ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST

Link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/96/meta
Only two of the six models above fit the data of the Alcock-Paczyński test: concordance ΛCDM and static universe with tired-light redshift.

PROBLEM: 50 shades of dark matter

Dark matter is used as an explanation for many different things at the same time.

• The rotation velocity of stars in galaxies.

• The formation of stars in galaxies.

• The formation of galaxies from primordial matter, it determines the time line.

These phenomena are unrelated from each other, so they don't fit so well.
In some cases dark matter is seen as very necessary, while in other cases dark matter is not necessary.

This also leads to all kinds of different versions of dark matter that are theorized to exist.
But they are not all the same, as they can not be used in the same way and same amount.

Many versions of dark matter have been tested, and most of them have come out negative.
This means that there is almost no option left, if there still is any.

In plasma cosmology, we do not need dark matter.
For each phenomenon and each case there is a possible explanation with plasma and electromagnetism.

Do we need Dark energy?

In plasma cosmology we have alternative explanations for dark energy.
So we don't need it.
It is so much simpler that Occam would certainly agree.

Special phenomena:

• Neutron stars / Black holes

Neutron stars and black holes were a solution to the problem that astronomers found sometimes light-pulses that have far more energy than expected.
So they thought that this might be possible by the destructive powers of hypothized black holes.

We have not seen black holes, but we see objects that produce particles beams.
We also see very strong electromagnetic fields around places where there might be black holes.

So plasma cosmology has an alternative much simpler explanation:
These pulses and beams come from electromagnetical systems.

So black holes and neutron stars may not even exist in plasma cosmology.

• Gravity lenses

According to Einstein's general relativity, the gravity is able to bend the light around very heavy objects.
In the extreme cases we might even get cross-shaped light or circle-shaped light around those heavy objects.

But plasma cosmology also adds alternative explanations:

• Plasma can form circular or cross likes structures. And due to their electromagnetic connections, they can be similar and sychronized.

• Plasma can concentrate around certain objects, depending on gravity and electromagnetism. And this can cause refraction of light.

• Plasma, gas or dust can cause reflection of light.

As all presented "evidence" for Einsten have very likely alternative explanations, plasma cosmology does not accept this as good evidence.

Bending of light:

As plasma cosmology observes much more plasma around the Sun, it can explain the visual movement of stars near the sun as being caused by refraction and not by gravity.
So there is an interesting discussion whether some of the main evidence for GR is actually valid.

• Gravitational waves

If you put your old radio on white noise and put it very loud.
Will you hear the voice of Einstein? Probably not.
This is what the LIGO has been doing for a long time. It has added all kinds of filters, correctors and amplifiers. in an attempt to detect "chirps" at 2 places almost simultaneously.
And these chirps are immediately evidence for a detection.
The level of amplification and noise reduction is beyond rediculous. The LIGO found some signals, but they can only be found if you use the exact the same filters.

It is easy to argue that the filters can only pass through the chirp that they want.
So after a lot of time the random noise would one day automatically produce this signal.

But the system also produces all kinds of echoes of chirps in some circumstances.
Which clearly indicates that their whole setup can produce chirps form certain types of input.

The final stroke for me was the research by independent researchers.
They used a similar setup and used it to receive low frequency radio waves.
And now this is what it is for me: A very expansive radio receiver, with which we can detect common chirps in radio waves from the cosmos.

Criticism on general relativity

Note: Plasma cosmology can work perfectly with all of general relativity.

It has alternative explanation for phenomena that are often attributed to general relativity.
Also for some phenomena that is used as evidence.
So we have the question: What of general relativity is actually correct? If any?

FAIL: Problems with "evidence" for general relativity and falsification

In the part about special phenomena I already named some problems with the evidence.

These videos list some more problems.

One major problem is that the Gravity probe that came out with a null-result.

FAIL: Time= dimension?

Special relativity uses time as a dimension, and at the same time it is relative.
This makes it impossible to express it consistently over all objects, and can lead to logical conflicts. Whithin general relativity the time dimension is uses more consistently.
Crothers: Does Spacetime exist?
Crothers: SR: Logical Inconsistencies

Zyxzevn:
It is also possible to express special relativity correction without space/time changes.

FAIL: Black holes physics and coordinates mixup

Crothers: Black Hole Escape Velocity
The Scharzschield radius is based on Newton's physics, not Einstein's.

Crothers: Black Hole geometry analyzed.
The coordinates within the timespace of the black hole are mixed up with the
coordinates of the different timespace outside the black hole.
(Also confirmed by Noble prize winner Hooft)
This makes the internal coordinates meaningless relative to the outside coordinates.

FAIL: Do charged particles in gravity acceleration produce radiation?

If charged particles are accelerated they produce radiation.
But on earth, in continuous acceleration by gravity charged particles do not produce radation. It has not been observed.
This would break the law of energy conservation too.
But this means that there is a difference between a particle in an acellerating elivator and a particle in a gravity field. Which seems to break the basics of general relativity.

FAIL: does light get bent in space by gravity or plasma?

In plasma cosmology there is a lot more plasma present around and between stars and around electric currents.
The concentrations can vary depending on gravity and the electromagnetism. In observations the plasma extends much further around the sun, and will affect the visibile position of the stars, due to refraction. This is moslty ignored by mainstream, as they keep thinking that the plasma pressure around the sun is extremely low. So they invalidly use it as evidence for bending of light due to gravity alone.

Can Stars BEND LIGHT? General relativity by Edward Dowdye
Dr Dowdye, eplains how bending of light around stars is caused by plasma and not by gravity alone.

FAIL: Planets and moons move away

Based on Einstein's gravity all gravitational orbits will lose some energy over time. That is because they should transmit gravitational waves.
So this means that moons will slowly spiral towards the planets and planets slowly to the sun.
We see the opposite effect. Moons and planets move away.

SUCCESS: Clock speeds change / gravitational redshift

Einstein was not all wrong.
With measurements with atomic clocks we can see that these clocks have different rates depending on the gravity. The GPS is one of those examples.

As the clocks are different, we should also get a gravitational redshift.
And indeed we see large redshifts near heavy objects.
[Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive "black hole"]*(https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09409)

SUCCESS: Apsides procession

The Apsides procession is the rotation of the ellipse of the orbit.
In newton's laws the ellipse stays the same.

In Plasma cosmology it is also possible that the orbit changes due to electrical plasma, but the amount of this effect still needs to be calculated.

Easy alternative

With the heisenberg relationship we can also derive Newton's gravity.
See video pdf

Note: It does not explain the observed clock-speed differences. But maybe it can be derived from it.

On /r/thunderbolts I will (soon) explore the many alternatives.

Faster than light?

Pulsars Plasma Bridge Discharge Exceeds Speed of Light? http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16228&p=112924&hilit=pulsars#p112924 (may be a visual trick)

Quantum mechanics

Why do we need quantum mechanics?

This is often misunderstood by people not working with small scale physics.
On the smallest scale, we see that physics is often wave-like. We see wave-interferences, we can use electron microscopes,
and we can use the maths of quantum mechanics to calculate the electric properties of any matter.
The wave nature is proven beyond doubt.

The discomfort with the wave-like nature comes from the particle model that we have of matter. Both are hard to combine.

For people in the field, the question becomes whether there are particles at all.
There are no particles, there are only fields
There are no particles, and there are no fields (paywalled)
So this discussion is not over.

The simplest solution

Why try find a difficult explanation when we have a very simple one?

The Threshold model
http://www.thresholdmodel.com/
Sadly he is not a very good speaker, so read below my explanation.

The hidden variables are in the sensor, not the light itself
With my background in quantum mechanics, it works for the tests that I have encountered, and it certainly helps me to find a quick working solution to quantum mechanical problems.

 **Quantum mechanics explained in a few lines:**  
 A sensor has many atoms that are in a random energy positions.  
 5 4 3 8 3 2 8 0 9 1 3 2 5 6
 The energy from electromagnetic waves spread over all atoms:  
 6 5 4 9 4 3 9 0 X 2 4 3 6 7
 Only one position received enough light to reach the threshold of 10.  
 This is what the detector sees:  
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0   
 It thinks that it received one photon
 The thresholds give us the illusion of particles.  

This also seems to work with electrons or small atoms.
Reiter demonstrates that in his videos.
This seems weird, as we see these as particles. But in all quantum experiments we can see that they do indeed have interference patterns.

Even atoms are made of waves.
And that is visible if we work on atom level:
IBM atom boy
Gold atomes pulled apart
Gold particle eats other particle

The difference between Leptons and Hadrons is probably that the Leptons store energy in thresholds. So the pauli exclusion principle is also caused by the thresholds.

Force field with relative movement

Einstein's solution for relativity is one of the most complicated solutions ever.
While it is a very simple principle, the complications are immense as we lose both eucledic space and linear time. And both are the basis for many observations.

It is philosphical as simple as saying that everything is a simulation:
it gives immense complications to our perceived reality.

Towards a simpler solution

On /r/thunderbolts I will (soon) explore other alternatives.

What if we did not change space/time with the speed of the objects or observers?
How would fields look like?
And how whould maxwell equations work?

So instead changing length and time to keep maxwell constant, we change the fields. We change the working of the electric fields in such a way that it produces forces similar to relativity.

Electromagnetism without magnetism
If we have 2 charged objects we have an electrical force of q*Q/R²
If we move one object, we have a delay, as everything moves with the speed of light.
This delay causes the force to come from a different distance and direction.

Now let's assume both move in the same direction (just like in special relativity examples).
The delay causes the force to come from a larger distance. This distance reduces the strength of the electrical force exaclty with the magnetic force.
Magnetic force = vvqQ/R² *But there is something strange.
The direction is from the position the moving objects are at the moment the force is received. So the direction is directly from/to the objects and not from behind.
This is logically from conservation of momentum and energy.
So due to movement, the electrical field changes direction with the speed of the sender.

No changes in space/time necessary in this formulation.
It is very simple and seems compatible with most of relativity.

With high speeds the delayed electrical force becomes almost zero. This means that very fast particle beams do not separate from each other quickly.
Which is also correct.

Note: There is still a lot of work in progress.

We still need to test how the direction would change depending on the speeds and positions of the objects.

Force= Particles?

Einstein modelled force as particles, but due to quantum mechanics we know that everything is waves (or fields).
This means that we should not see forces as particles. This gives some conflicts with theories built on that principle.
If forces are particles, the laws of conservations will be broken due to randomizations. They will show up more at low temperatures as there are less particles available. But we not observe such randomizations. Any atom or molecule can just blow apart suddenly with random force particles.
So only fields are a valid solution.

Fields conflict with:
- Einstein's special relativity.
- Direc's Quantum Electro Dynamics.
- Quantum Field Theory (different kind of fields).
They try to correct it by assuming a huge number of virtual particles, and an infinite number of interactions, which is not really a solution. Looking deeper at the theories, they are more like hacks that worked for the cases that they tried it on. That is why this gives the best and worst prediction in science.
That is always the result of a hack.

With the simplest solution for quantum mechanics, and force field with relative movement, everything becomes very simple.
So I leave it as an exercise to the reader to derive the corrections to particle physics.