Chapter 14. Transformation of Matter.

Neither long range electric forces nor gravity exist to any considerable degree in association with a plasma body, until the plasma body erupts into a galaxy. Once a plasma body erupts into a galaxy, the conversion from repulsive plasma to regular matter will start in the erupted plasma.

When the plasma body erupts into a galaxy, smaller volumes of plasma will flow outwards. Away from the bigger plasma body, several factors contribute to destabilise the erupted plasma, and thereby make it convert into regular matter:

• The repulsive field from a smaller plasma body is not able to keep regular matter at enough distance, and when regular matter clashes with plasma, the reaction will be ferocious and knock out smaller chunks of plasma from the sphere.

• Very small plasma spheres will hardly have strong enough repulsive fields to keep regular matter away at all, and this matter will explode and quickly convert to regular matter.

• The K-flux in the erupted plasma diminishes as it moves away from the large plasma body of its origin. Therefore the strong force which keeps this plasma together is reduced.

• Smaller plasma spheres will have a stronger curvature at its surface, and this is likely to make the lattice structure less stable.

When matter has erupted from the K-emitting plasma body gravitation will arise slowly, as erupted plasma converts to regular matter. Matter may convert ferociously, or more controlled and steadily. Probably, all plasma which converts to regular matter, will first convert to free neutrons. A free neutron will transform into a proton-electron pair in about 15 minutes at the level of K-flux at Earth today. This process of repulsive plasma converting to free neutrons accounts for the vast amount of hydrogen in the galaxy. It is the assumption in our model for the electric force that the system of electron-proton pairs turns the sign of some Ks to maintain the electric force. When Ks are transformed from one sign to another, they loose a minute part of their amplitude for EP interaction in the process. The transformed Ks are emitted with all their energy intact, only their amplitude for interacting with elementary particles has changed slightly. “Sign” in this connection is not charge per se, but it is connected to charge in electric phenomena. So sign can be intrinsic “spin” or another property which allows for Ks to interact with elementary particles (EPs). Because of this ability to switch sign of Ks in electric absorption centres, and the consequential reduction of K amplitudes, matter becomes normal gravitational matter when electric charge is introduced to the galaxy. To which extent such K transformation takes place in all regular matter we encounter in our daily life is hard to tell straight up, since K transformation could be related only to absorption centres creating long range electric fields. Neutrons and even photons may exhibit this ability to change sign in Ks, but then without any long range electric effect. The question is whether matter containing non-electric EPs will have any effect on modifying K’s amplitude or not.

Consequence 29:

Disintegrating repulsive plasma will convert to free neutrons, which will split into proton-electron pairs within about 15 minutes. This is how the vast amount of hydrogen in galaxies is created.

Consequence 30:

In the very beginning of the galaxy, there was only repulsive, K-enhancing matter. No significant amount of matter with long range electromagnetic forces or attractive gravitation existed in the plasma body. Only after matter had erupted from the K-emitting plasma body did gravitation arise. The plasma converted to a form of matter which would turn the sign of some Ks, and thereby slightly reduce the amplitude for EP interaction of the emitted Ks. Partial K transformation in electric absorption centres creates the matter-related deficiency of regular K-flux we know as gravitation.

Formation of heavy atoms.

How do we explain the heavy, unstable atoms on Earth? Why should they form in the first place? Looking at our model for the strong nuclear forces and how our galaxy was created, we see that the K-flux must have been significantly higher in our galaxy’s infancy:

• The universe was more compact (less expanded), hence a greater K-flux.

• Not so many plasma bodies had erupted into galaxies, hence there were more K-enhancing – and less K-reducing matter compared with the present situation.

• The matter in the galaxy initially resided closer to the plasma body.

With significantly higher K-flux, larger atoms would not only be stable, but they could form exothermically (release energy). As the universe and our galaxy have changed towards lower K-flux, the stable, larger atoms have become less stable due to a weakening of the strong force, since the strong force is proportional to the interaction frequency the K-flux. Therefore the unstable, heavy atoms we see today, may have been stable in the early life of the galaxy, while the K-flux was somewhat higher. The lower the K-flux, the less stable big atoms will be.

In the far future, some of today’s stable, large atoms may become unstable due to less K-flux if the universe keeps drifting apart. Our galaxy will gradually contract as more of the core’s repulsive plasma is lost and converted to regular matter. When this happens throughout our universe, the increase in regular gravitational matter will further reduce the interaction frequency of the background K flux. Larger atoms, which are stable now, may become radioactive in the far future.

Consequence 31:

The higher the K-flux, the larger are the atoms which can be formed while the process remains exothermic. Therefore the unstable, heavy atoms we see today may have been stable in the early life of the galaxy, while the K-flux was somewhat higher. The lower the K-flux, the less stable big atoms will be.

We have shown that the gravitational potential probably is on the form

U = - G · M · e^–aM / r

because the K flux gets weaker inside the mass the more mass there is. We visualise this using virtual K neutrinos, where one K neutrino represents a large number of Ks with a slightly reduced amplitude (affinity) for EP interaction. As the K flux passes through matter, the Ks which are transformed to K neutrinos, will leave the mass without any further interaction, and we will have a gradient of less and less K flux towards the centre of the sphere M. The reduced K flux means reduced strong nuclear force, and this may shift the balance towards more unstable atoms. The result may be more nuclear decay and therefore more thermonuclear energy production inside large planets. This would partly explain the hot core of cold planets, but since there is an unknown amount of thermonuclear activity inside cold planets, it will be difficult to make a good estimate of the contribution from a weaker K flux.

How are stars made up?

When you start questioning certain fundamental paradigms, a lot of new fields open up for a second thought. The steady fusion process of stars is not considered an anomaly in physics. But still it is very strange that the fusion process is so amazingly steady. With such highly energetic processes, why don’t stars pulsate a lot more?

Here is how the fusion process in stars “should” function within today’s paradigm:

• The fusion rate will increase with increased temperature.

• The fusion rate will increase with increased pressure.

Pressure and temperature builds up, fusion increases. Since it cannot expand instantly, temperature will increase more, and fusion will increase more. Then comes expansion, which triggers more fusion in neighbouring areas as well, if they have fallen behind. Expansion means less pressure and less temperature and less fusion as it develops, and then even less fusion because of the decrease in fusion which leads to even less temperature and pressure – until it starts contracting and builds up another pulse. Basically all stars should display much more variation due to a rather slowly pulsating fusion process, but they are not.

Of course, this may stem from steady processes within today’s paradigm. All it takes is that the fusion process is remarkably insensitive to pressure differences and temperature differences. But let us explore another possibility.

Having replaced the black hole at the centre of galaxies with repulsive plasma which evaporates matter - and hence neutrons - we shall now allow ourselves another thought-experiment. What if some of the erupted plasma chunks in our galaxy are still repulsive plasma? If that is the case, they either orbit the galaxy in the form of dark repulsive spheres, or they may reside at the core of stars, evaporating neutrons. Probably the curvature of the surface of such a plasma sphere is quite decisive for how stable the surface is, so spheres under a certain size will evaporate more matter than bigger spheres. And if there is a plasma body at the centre of all stars, they will also exchange matter when they are hit by regular matter. High velocity matter can penetrate the matter-free zone around the repulsive plasma body. And the repulsive force from the plasma will decrease as it shrinks, thereby increasing the frequency of hits with regular matter, which will increase the speed of neutron release. Therefore we would expect a star to blow up when its plasma sphere gets too small, because then the amount of neutrons which is released would rise sharply.

Fig. 25. A possible model of a star with a repulsive plasma sphere at the centre.

Our suggestion here can be summed up in this way:

• The plasma core evaporates a rather steady flow of neutrons.

• The presence of a steady flow of neutrons facilitates the formation of Deuterium and Tritium, since neutrons and newly formed hydrogen will reside together in the high pressure zone near the core of the star.

• The flow of neutrons would regulate the fusion process, and explain why it is so amazingly steady.

• Formation of still heavier atoms would be explained by the constant drizzling of neutrons through the layers of heavier atoms near the repulsive plasma core.

• Leftover neutrons which did not engage within the lifetime of a free neutron will turn into a proton-electron pair, which is hydrogen.

Consequence 32:

A star may contain at its centre a repulsive plasma body which evaporates neutrons, thereby feeding the steady fusion process in stars.

The fusion process in stars works by high pressure and high temperature. Why is the fusion process so amazingly steady? Why doesn’t it fluctuate more? Is there hardly any correlation between higher pressure and higher temperature and a higher fusion rate? If there is, stars would pulsate. Should the fusion process in stars be considered an unexplained anomaly?

One should note that a core of repulsive plasma in stars will provide the stars with more matter and hence more inertia than its gravitational field should indicate. A star will put up less gravity per unit mass compared to expectations. We shall discuss this in greater detail in the next chapter.

Chapter 15. Gravitational Field Formation.

We now operate with two kinds of matter – regular matter which downregulates K amplitude – and repulsive plasma which upregulates K amplitude (affinity) for EP interaction. Furthermore, we suspect that gravity is linked to the electromagnetic process, so we don’t know whether electrically neutral particles, like neutrons, will contribute to a gravitational field at all. Let us see what this can lead to.

If the existence of gravity has its origin in the need to switch K sign, the K-enhancing plasma bodies seems unlikely to have any electric absorption centres which make long range electric fields. Having opened up for non-gravitational matter, we need to revisit regular matter and address the question about which elementary particles contribute to the gravitational field. There are two basic ways to look at when electric charge enters the universe. The electric charge can arise:

1. When neutrons are formed, meaning that a neutron possesses both a positive and a negative electric absorption centre, which change the sign of some regular Ks and generate gravity when the Ks loose a minute part of their amplitude (affinity) for interacting with matter.

2. When neutrons split into proton-electron pairs, meaning that neutrons don’t have electric absorption centres and don’t generate gravity.

As we have demonstrated in chapter 11 about the strong force, the K absorption centres – which generate the strong force – will create electromagnetic dipoles or monopoles with a very short range like the size of a nucleus, but no long range electric fields. Fig. 17-18 demonstrate that even without changing sign of any Ks, there will be electromagnetic variations within nuclei and atoms because the absorption centres function by emitting K⁺ and K^- in a directional way, and not at random. So the fact that for instance a neutron has short range electric properties does not necessarily mean that a neutron has absorption centres which change sign of some Ks. Hence there is no need for any electric charge to explain the presence of electric dipoles. Only the absorption centres which are specific for electric charge (Fig. 14-15) will require that K signs are switched.

The three quarks in a neutron are assigned with charge +2/3 and two times -1/3, and we should therefore expect that neutrons have intrinsic charge. But if electric monopoles / dipoles can exist without any charge, this classification of the quarks could be misleading. Then up-quark and down-quark are really good names, because their charge mostly tell about where the Ks are emitted and what sign the emitted Ks have. Perhaps there is no charge in the quarks of a neutron according to our definition of charge, since our definition requires that K signs are switched.

Furthermore, if the repulsive plasma shall be without electric charge, it may also function without any switching of K sign. Or the case could be that repulsive plasma turns some K sign, but even so, the K enhancing effect must still be the dominant factor. Hence it is impossible at this stage to conclude about the neutron, but it may seem more likely that it does not contribute to gravity than the opposite. This is the rationale for suggesting that neutrons may not possess any ability to influence the K-flux through K transformation, and hence has no ability to exercise contractive gravitation.

Note also that the ability to set up a gravitational field must be seen separate from being influenced by a gravitational field. A neutron will respond to gravity just like protons and electrons regardless of what gravitational field it produces.

The question about what kind of EPs cause gravity has implication both for the models of atoms because of the electric properties, and for the gravitational field. Without deciding in favour of any of the two possibilities, let us examine the consequences of alternative 2, that neutrons don’t have any electric absorption centres which would have a net effect of transforming Ks.

Starting from our model for the strong force explained by absorption centres, fig 17-18, we see that even without changing sign of any Ks, there will be electromagnetic variations within nuclei and atoms because the absorption centres function by emitting K⁺ and K^- in a directional way, and not at random. So the fact that for instance a neutron has short range electric properties does not necessarily mean that a neutron has absorption centres which change sign of some Ks. Hence we cannot easily say whether neutrons transform Ks to turn K sign, and thereby contribute to setting up a gravitational field through K transformation.

K-transforming matter modifies the regular K-flux of its surroundings, and thereby influences other objects. We now look at the case where only charged particles will participate in forming a gravitational field. In this scenario neutrons will not perform gravity. If so, a star consisting of mostly hydrogen can set up about 2 times stronger gravity per mass compared to a cold planet consisting of mostly heavy atoms. This is because the ratio of proton per total mass will be about twice as high for the hydrogen star relative to the planet of heavy atoms. But when it comes to responding to a gravitational field (K-flux deficiency) set up by other celestial bodies, or how to respond to repulsive K flux (K-flux abundance) from K-emitting plasma bodies, both the hydrogen star and the heavy-atom planet will respond in proportion to their total mass. Therefore this effect is not easy to register, since the gravitational acceleration is the same for all matter.

Under the above assumption, we get the following hypothesis:

If we suppose that neutrons don’t possess electric absorption centres able to switch K sign, then regular matter creates a gravitational field which is proportional to its number of protons + electrons, and the gravitational field is not proportional to the total mass of the matter, since neutrons don’t contribute to making gravitational fields.

Irrespective of whether or not neutrons absorb Ks to turn sign, we have that:

Consequence 33:

Matter responds to a K-flux deviance, be it attractive or repulsive, in a way which is proportional to the total mass of the matter, where matter includes neutrons, protons, electrons, repulsive plasma, photons and whatever else is out there.

This special effect of gravity, where matter responds to gravity in a different way than matter itself creates gravitational fields, can be easily overlooked because the gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass of a body in a gravitational field. Therefore, if our sun has 10% less mass than its gravitational pull should indicate (according to Earthly standards) it would not be easily noticed, because the sun will also be 10% less influenced by the gravity from other celestial bodies when it has reduced mass. So its movements as a response to the gravity of moving planets would be almost the same. Perhaps some minor differences may occur which can be measured. But if we take a ton of hydrogen, and a ton of lead, and measure the gravitational field created by the 2 bodies, the hydrogen would create about twice the gravitational field of the lead, if neutrons don’t create gravitational fields.

Since we suppose that the gravitational field is the deficiency of regular K-flux due to K transformation in electric absorption centres, the gravitational field is a directional modification of the K-flux density in space pointing away from the source of K transformation. Suppose that 2 celestial bodies modify the K-flux in space in exactly the same way (set up equal gravitational fields), but one contains much more hydrogen than the other, and it is therefore lighter. At a given distance R the gravitational acceleration toward both bodies is g. One peculiar thing is that a star with mass 0,9M will create a pull on a planet with mass 1M with a force

F = g x 1M = gM,

while the other way, the pull will be

F = g x 0,9M = 0,9gM,

so the pull will be asymmetric.

When a planet is drawn towards the sun with a force F, the hypothesis in this chapter is that the sun may be drawn towards the planet with a smaller force, which can be anything from 50-99 % of F depending on the ratio of hydrogen in each of the two celestial bodies. Does this mean that Newton’s rule of Force = Counterforce does not apply? No, that conclusion would be too hasty. The systems which interact do not only consist of the 2 celestial bodies, the 2 bodies are merely modulators for what kind of K radiation the other body will be hit with, which in turn will change the pressure the body will experience. The entire universe which set up the background K-flux and the “local” deviance caused by the galaxy are the 2 main outside players here. And counting everything, Newton is doing fine.

Now we have given reasons why stars may generate more gravity per kg of matter than regular planets, and why stars can generate less pr unit mass. Both these considerations may be true, one may hold, or they may both be wrong. Let us just show the possibilities in one table.

Table showing various alternatives for gravity generated by a star.

Balance of K amplitude modifying processes in the universe.

In the formation of the gravitational potential by matter, which probably is caused by the electric process, some Ks loose a minute part of their amplitude for EP interaction. If there is nothing that can turn the K amplitude back up, the universe will develop into a state where Ks have lower and lower amplitudes. Since there is no reason to assume that the universe has any time limit back in time, the universe should have been drained of regular Ks unless this process is reversible. Of course the plasma spheres could thrive on their enormous energy (mass) to deliver this K surplus without enhancing K amplitude. But considering the need for a balance in the K accounts over very long time intervals, it is much more likely that the Ks get their amplitude (probability / affinity) for interacting with matter slightly enhanced by the repulsive plasma bodies.

Credit: Main illustration: David A. Aguilar (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA), amended by Trond Erik Hillestad A propagating K-flux deficiency (gravity) is illustrated by circles of decreasing strength.