Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.

danda
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?

Unread post by danda » Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:40 pm

I've thought for decades that the universe is an infinite fractal. Meaning that "atoms" are actually stars, or maybe galaxies at a smaller scale, and our solar system (or galaxy?) is an atom at a larger scale. So, given that galactic centers are thought to be immense plasmoids in EU theory, it would logically follow that the core of an atom would be also...

I believe that if we start to look at the very small and the very large as being essentially the same thing, we can learn more about both faster, as a discovery in one applies to the other...

kmcook
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:20 am
Location: Northern Tasmania

Re: Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?

Unread post by kmcook » Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:38 pm

That link, ^trevbus above, is all grey print on black background - just awful to try and read comfortably.
I gave up very early on the home page.
My web designer would be out the door for that sin.

(Wonder why books and newspapers are printed black ink on white paper??)

User avatar
philalethes
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?

Unread post by philalethes » Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:01 pm

compared to some jarring sites with red text on green, this is easy to read.
But everyone's eyes are different.
Try browser add-on like Font Contrast. Take control of your viewing when it bothers you.

Or, if it's something you really want to read:
1. Control A select all
2. open something like Word
3. Control V paste in

Now you have it black and white.
Be proactive,...not a baby whiner.
Last edited by philalethes on Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2872
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?

Unread post by nick c » Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:21 pm

Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?
Since "plasmoid" is defined as "a coherent struture composed of plasma and magnetic fields" then plasmoids must be composed of protons and electrons. Therefore, you probably need to give a detailed description of what is the make up of a proton and then give it another name since calling them plasmoids really doesn't make sense.

Have you looked into Ralph Sansbury's "subtrons"?
Thornhill wrote:Without accepting his model in its entirety, I consider Ralph Sansbury’s straightforward electrical theory of magnetism and gravity[15] to have conceptual merit. Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. These smaller electric charges he calls ‘subtrons.’ This is the kind of simplification of particle physics required by Ockham’s razor and philosophically agreeable, though it leaves unanswered the real nature and origin of the subtrons. In this model, the electron cannot be treated like a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known vaguely as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of subtrons within the electron to generate a magnetic dipole. The transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant and near instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same argument applies to the proton, the neutron, and, as we shall see —the neutrino.

This model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects. It is ironic that such a model requires the electric force between the charges to operate incomparably faster than the speed of light in order that the electron remain a coherent particle. It means that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that prohibits signalling faster than light, must be repealed. A recent experiment verifies this.

Electromagnetic waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling in an immense universe. Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.
from:
Electric Gravity In An Electric Universe

danda
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: Are protons and neutrons actually plasmoids?

Unread post by danda » Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:14 am

Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle
Sounds kinda like a star system with sun and planets. Or perhaps a galaxy with plasmoid core and orbiting stars.

Check out these visual comparisons of hydrogen atom states and planetary nebula star systems:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201025072 ... index.html

Here is another theory exploring the idea that the cosmos is an infinite self-similar fractal at all scales.

https://www.academia.edu/429168/Realiti ... _are_Atoms

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest