What is time? (Videos)

There is no doubt about it, I have solved the mystery of time. If you have ever wondered what time is, then you are at the right place.

Some people just want an absurdly short explanation. If that is you, Time is a motion that is defined to be the Speed of Light!

A large number of people will desire a better, but short explanation. If that is you, then please expand and read the next subtopic below on, “The Speed-of-Light Definition of Time.”

Some people would rather watch a video. If that is you:

A video that explains, “What is time?”

Some people would like a more thorough explanation. For you, I have a page with links to quite a bit of information.

Understanding Time: The main list of topics on time. (This includes: the physics of time, the Speed-of-Light Definition of Time as compared to Special Relativity, the history of time, and the philosophiy of time.)

I have authored 2 books on the subject of time, with a third in the works.

What is time? © 1985)

The solution the question, “What is time?” © 1995)

Time & The Grand Unification of Physics © sometime in 2016)

Please keep in mind, if you would like to understand a long list of some really interesting topics in physics and astronomy, then you must first understand time.

“The Speed-of-Light Definition of Time”

In short, “Time” is a constant quantity of motion that we use to measure other motions. Through most of history, the motion that the average person used, the motion that was called, “Time” was the apparent motion of the sun as it crosses the sky for earth-bound observers. (You can imagine it as the sun's motion, or the motion of the shadow on a sundial.)

Because the sun's motion could not be carried around by people, because it could not be seen at night, or be seen when it was cloudy, clock's were developed to duplicate the sun's motion.

On typical clocks, the hour hand is 2 times as fast as the sun's apparent motion. The minute hand is 24 times as fast. The second hand is 1440 times as fast as the apparent motion of the sun.

Again, through most of history, the sun's apparent motion was called, “time.” However, at one point in history, the sun's apparent motion stopped being used because the motions of the hands on clocks had advantages. At one point, the apparent motion of the second hand on typical clocks became the “semi-official” motion that was called, “Time.” (You might call this motion the “Solar Second.”)

Again, the Solar Second is an apparent motion that is 1440 times as fast as the sun's apparent motion. (Every time the sun appears to circle the earth once, the second hand appears to circle the dialface of a clock 1440 times.) Later, an almost identical motion was defined using atomic clocks. This motion is, the “Atomic Second.”

Let me emphasize, the two motions — the Solar Second and the Atomic Second — are almost identical motions. Both motions are moving almost exactly 1440 times as fast as the sun appears to move across the sky.

It is now standard practice in physics to modify the “atomic second” using Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Relativity is a correction factor for moving clocks. A moving clock does not define motion correctly of course. The motion of the clock combines with the motion on the clock to make a new motion.

Instead of using a bad definition for time — which the Atomic Second is — and Special Relativity to correct for the mistake, I simply defined time to be the fastest known motion. At this point in history, the fastest known motion is a motion we call “The Speed of Light.” When time is defined to travel at “the speed of light,” then, Special Relativity is not needed to fix the problem of using a sublight definition of time.

An important detail to understand is this, when you use the “Speed-of-Light Definition of Time,” then you are working with a new type of physics. This simple definition wreaks havoc is some areas of traditional physics — but that is OK because it leads directly to the Grand Unification of Physics.

(The main list of topics on time.)

(A video that explains, “What is time?”)

(No link yet. A video that is coming soon: The New Year's Eve Example.)

(No link yet. A video that is coming soon: The Helicopter Example.)

The Grand Unification of Physics

Ok, this is too big to quickly explain, but I will keep this introduction short. Let me start with the simple equation:

It is a little long as text:

The Electric field vector cross the Magnetic field vector equals the Gravitational field vector.

It is very short and simple as a graphic:

[Note: this version of this equation uses “natural units” where the speed of light has a value of 1.]

Let me continue with a quick analogy.

In geometry, there are three well-known types: Euclidean, Hyperbolic, and Elliptical. All three types have “perfect,” “valid” logic — credited to Euclid of course. What is the difference between them you ask? It is in their beginning definitions — specifically, the definition for parallel lines.

Physics already has one definition for time. It is a vague and badly formed definition. I have a new, unique and very explicit definition for time.

[Note, time is one of the fundamental concepts in physics — an SI Basic Unit. If you change the beginning definition of a Basic Unit, it has a ripple affect, and you end up with a different type of physics.]

When you use the Atomic Second defintion for time — in essence — when you follow the logic, you end up needing Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity — and you end up with Quantum Physics — as it is now described.

[Note: this is a “harder,” Non-Euclidean type of physics, using 4D Space-Time.]

However, when you use a different defintion for time — in this case, The Speed-of-Light Definition of Time — and follow the logic, you end up with a very simple, new type of physics.

[Note: this is a simpler, “easier,” “Euclidean” type of physics, using 3D Space.]

It does not matter if you prefer to use the harder physics, or the easier physics, it is up to you. Just like Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries are both valid, both types of physics are valid. Both Einstein's harder non-Euclidean and my easier Euclidean forms of physics are valid. Physics that uses a sublight definition of time and Relativity, and physics that uses a speed of light definition of time, are both valid. OK, enough with this analogy.

It is well known in physics that the “two pillars” of physics — Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics — are not compatible. This has led to many attempts at the Grand Unification of Physics. You may have heard of: Supersymmetry, Superstrings, String Theory, and many “membrane” theories, like “m-branes” and “p-branes.” My grand unification theory uses spheres. If you are the type of person that needs such labels, then you might call them “super-spheres” and describe them as “super-symmetrical” — but I feel that is unnecessary.

[String Theory Note: if you are familar with String Theory, then you should note that “balls-of-light” are 3D ”solitons” that incorporate the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields in a dynamic fashion. The dimensions of space-time are reduced using the equality: 1 second equals 299,792,458 meters. See Measuring Motion.]

Essentially, “The Ball-of-Light Particle Model” — my grand unification theory — led me to predict that there is something called a spherical wave. These waves are extremely interesting. They can not easily form as water waves, or as sound waves. However, I believe they are everywhere! Spherical waves are formed using electric, magnetic fields and gravitational fields.

[Note: there is no doubt — spherical waves exist!]

For physics history buffs, this is the return of something that used to be talked about quite alot around the 1900's — something called “electromagnetic mass!”

Using the Speed-of-Light Defintion of Time leads to the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, which is essentially a quantum gravitation theory. Quantum theory is part of the model.

Again, if my grand unification theory is correct, then these spherical waves are everywhere. These spherical waves make photons. (Essentially, photons are moving spherical waves of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields.) These waves make elementary particles. (Essentially, elementary particles are spherical waves of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields — standing spherical waves — colloquially “balls-of-light.”)

“The Ball-of-Light Particle Model”

In general, physicists do not understand spherical waves made up of electric and magnetic fields. (Notice, I am not even throwing in the gravitational field here.) Physicists think they understand how the magnetic field works. However, they overlooked an important discovery. (In my opinion, this “overlooked discovery” should have taken place sometime between 100 and 130 years ago!)

Anyhow, the magnetic field works differently than most physicists expect — in regards to a spherical electromagnetic wave.

[Note: this has caused an enormous problem in the field of Fusion Science. It is why we still do not have fusion power plants giving us cheap, clean, safe, abundant energy.]

The overlooked discovery is this: simply, the magnetic field changes direction as it passes over a sphere.

In this spherical wave, the electric field (magenta arrows) is moving left to right. On the left hemisphere the magnetic field (blue arrows) curls left, then changes to curl right on the right hemisphere. (The cross product, gravity, always points inward to the center of the wave.)

The “overlooked discovery” is, as it moves over a sphere, the magnetic field flip-flops the direction of its “curl” as the field passes the “equator” of the sphere. (This is what the $40 experiment easily proves.)

[Note: initally, physicists always seem to disagree with this flipping of direction — but then — eventually, they realize that this must happen in order for the physics to be symmetrical. It seems, at first, they don't believe or even “hate” this idea. In my opinion, eventually, they will love this!]

Now don't get me wrong. Historically, physicists have made many great discoveries — made many very difficult discoveries — in a wide range of fields — especially in electromagnetics. But they missed a simple one. Pull out any physics textbook. Go to the index. Look up waves. You will find a few key types waves: “longitudinal,” “transverse,” even “circular waves” — but you will not find “spherical waves.” (I found a number of references to how a “spherical bell” might vibrate — but that doesn't count.)

[Note: the United States Military has the patent on spherical antennas.]

I believe, next to not understanding “time,” not understanding how the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields in a spherical wave works is the biggest oversight in physics.

When a student studies Maxwell's equations and electromagnetics, the professor always brings up two problems. (James Clerk Maxwell, 1831–1879.) Maxwell's equations of electromagnetics are perfectly symmetrical except for two problems. The equations of electromagnetics imply the existence of “magnetic monopoles,” and they do not include gravity. (Explicitly: they do not “unify” gravity.) If the Ball-of-Light Particle Model is correct, then these two “different” problems is actually just one problem. In essence, elementary particles are magnetic monopoles. In essence, the gravitational field is a monopole magnetic field. In essence, “gravity” is a form of “magnetism.” Seems pretty obvious as soon as you think about it!

[Note: this will cause many scientists to create experiments where they make electromagnetic mass and make gravity using electromagnetic methods.]

To summarize: these three fundamental fields — the Electric field, the Magnetic field, and the Gravitational field — are unified by one simple “one-inch” equation:

This equation is a reformulation of a well-known equation in physics. It is an equation called the “Poynting Vector.”

The Poynting Vector was primarily developed by John Henry Poynting (1852–1914) around the time-frame of 1884.

In my opinion, the Poynting Vector is a grand unifying equation — maybe not a grand unification theory, but at least a unifying equation. In the 1880's, this equation was part of a theory on electromagnetic mass. What happened to this theory you may ask? Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity slammed the door on it! If physicists could have answered the question of “What is time?” back then — before Einstein came up with Relativity — then combined it with the Poynting Vector, then they would have had a working TOE — a Theory Of Everything — a GUT — a Grand Unification Theory way back then. Unfortunately, Special Relativity made the concept of time even more difficult to understand. Time became a greater mystery than it already was. Unfortunately, even Einstein went to his grave without ever finally understanding time! Unfortunately, the physicists working on electrmagnetic mass — John Poynting, Oliver Heaviside (1850–1925), and their contemporaries — never had a chance.

A Fusion Energy Breakthrough

Using this new physics that I have developed enabled me to engineer a new type of nuclear fusion power plant. In my patent application, I described how to build a new type of fusion reactor using “traditional” physics — in other words, without using my new physics. My new physics gave me the edge, but, ultimately was not needed for the patent. I applied for the patent, and received it on May 3, 2005. In my opinion, the United States Patent, 6,888,434, “Nuclear fusion reactor incorporating spherical electromagnetic fields to contain and extract energy ” is both an excellent demonstration of my new physics and the solution to our future energy needs.

My main fusion patent can be seen at:

US Patent #6,888,434 (Nuclear fusion reactor incorporating spherical electromagnetic fields to contain and extract energy)

My second patent is a “daughter” patent with claims for superconductivity.

US Patent #7,079,001

(Topics on Nuclear Fusion.)

Nordberg Fusion Technologies

At present, one of my main goals is to create a Research & Development company to develop and license my fusion energy patent. It will be located west of the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area in Minnesota.

I need help here. First, I will eventually need a team of people to help me. I am looking for management, scientists, and technicians. There are many possible positions. Contact me if this interests you, but understand, I am not hiring yet.

Second, I will need money. Initially, I will offer State Operating Licenses to companies or individuals, and Manufacturing Licenses to new or existing energy companies. Donations would be very helpful.

Third, I have a number of joint research plans for universities that are interested.

(I will also license the superconductivity patent to companies interested in making superconducting cables.)

Nordberg Fusion Technologies Information

Advantages for earth of using this Fusion Energy breakthrough now

Fusion Energy Research Plans

Fusion Energy State Operating Licenses

Fusion Energy Manufacturing Licenses

Superconductivity Patent Information

Spherical Electromagnetic Waves

Somehow, over the last 100 to 130 years, physicists have missed discovering spherical electromagnetic waves — more specifically, “standing waves” and “moving waves” that have a “spherical wave” geometry. These waves are composed of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields acting at right angles to each other.

Topics & animations on spherical waves

A $40 Proof-of-Principle Experiment (Video)

Carl Sagan (1934–1996) once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Well that is not entirely true. If an extroardinary claim can be proven with an extremely simple and cheap experiment, then why is an extraordinary bit of evidence needed?

You don't have to have a doctorate in physics with a lucrative Department of Energy grant to test this. You can test this yourself! The key item you need to purchase is a metal ball. (It could be a hollow steel ball. It could be a copper sphere.) You can find an empty cardboard box for free. You can purchase the metal ball, a fluid-filled hunting compass, some insulated wire, and a battery for less than $40. With these simple, inexpensive components, you too can duplicate an “extroardinary” physics experiment that proves spherical electromagnetic waves exist.

Introduction to spherical electromagnetic waves.

The $40 spherical wave experiment. (Video)

This simple experiment is the fundamental basis for my nuclear fusion reactor patent. (I believe it is also the the fundamental idea for understanding superconductivity.) Somehow, this experiment was missed by the physicists over the last 100 to 130 years. It is not being taught in high school, or college physics. This experiment should be taught to all physics students. (It makes a great science fair experiment!) Apparently, physicists simply did not think of this experiment before now. With respect to fusion power plants, this experiment demonstrates how society can have cheap, safe, carbon-free energy for now, and into the forseeable future. It is the basis of my nuclear fusion reactor. It is also the basis for explaining photons and elementary particles. In short, you must understand this experiment to understand the fundamentals of physics. (Is that extraordinary enough?)

The source of electric charge

Have you ever wondered “what” is electric charge? Some elementary particles have a positive charge — like protons. Some elementary particles have a negative charge — like electrons. And of course, there are neutral elementary particles — like neutrons and neutrinos. However, what is the fundamental difference between these particles? What is it that creates charge? What difference creates the different kinds of charge on the particle? Do elementary particles have a feature that creates charge? I believe elementary particles have a geometrical difference in their shape that causes the particle to be positive, negative, or neutral. My hypothesis is simple, and is based upon the Ball-of-Light Particle Model.

Introduction to electrical charge.

Video on electric charge.

Solar Activity (Cause & Predictions)

My physics is different from traditional physics. Using the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, I think of nuclear fusion differently. Actually, fusion and fission are very much alike. Most people with a modest understand of physics understand that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass. But how? What is the mechanism? Also important, is there a limit to the size of the elementary particle? In my model for elementary particles, there is no limit for how big an elementary particle can become — other than encompassing all the mass and energy of the universe.

Using my theory of fusion, it was obvious to me that the traditional standard model for how stars work was wrong.

To test my theory, I developed a simple alternative model for our sun to see if I could predict solar activity. Since the fall of 1999, I have had the best solar activity predictions in the world. (As far as I know of.) The predictions are simple to replicate, are based upon public data from the US Navy, and are easy to compare to historical solar activity data. The predictions are based upon the wobble of the sun.

[Note: even if you do not believe my physics at this time, it seems impossible to me for astronomers to “fix” the standard model so that it also predicts solar activity by using the wobble of the star. In other words, the observation that the sun's wobble is related to solar activity is incompatible with the standard model.]

In short, if you adopt my Speed-of-Light Definition of Time, then you are led to my grand unification theory, The Ball-of-Light Particle Model, and this spotlights errors in astronomy. In essence, adopting a new, simple definition for time implies much of astronomy is wrong.

Predicting Earthquakes (Earthquake Watches)

While I was working on predicting solar activity, a horrible earthquake struck Turkey in the Fall of 1999. It occurred to me, that just as the sun's wobble relates to solar activity, the earth'a wobble might relate to earthquake activity. I wondered, “Could the earth's wobble predict major earthquakes?” — 6.0 and above in magnitude. It does. I believe the standard line from geophysicists, “Earthquakes can not be predicted” is wrong.

Predicting Earthquakes.

Earthquake Watches.

“Balls-of-Light”

I use the phrases “ball of light,” “balls of light,” “ball-of-light,” and “balls-of-light” in an intentially colloquial manner — in other words, they are not strictly correct physical descriptions. (A very uptight physicist might dislike this.)

When I first developed my grand unification theory, I realized that it needed a name. I observed that when people spotted naturally forming balls of light, they called them, “balls of light.” Strictly speaking, these “balls” are spherical waves. Strictly speaking, the “light” is made up of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields — not just visible light. I could have called my grand unification theory, the “Spherical Electromagneticgravitational Wave Particle Model,” or “Spherical EMG Field Wave Particle Model,” or something similar. When I tested such names on people, their eyes just glazed over. However, whenever I described that the particles are like “balls of light,” they immediately seemed to understand.

I prefer to capitalize the words because they are part of a title. I prefer to hyphenate the three words, “Balls-of-Light” because this emphasizes that these three words represents one idea. I understand that, for some people, the word, “Particle” does not seem to relate to, “Light,” or “Photons,” but it does. The key detail is these “particles” are either, “moving waves,” when they are photons, or “standing waves,” when they are elementary particles — but the spherical structure of the waves is always the same.

Topics on Balls-of-Light.

The Unified Forces in Physics

If you adopt the Speed-of-Light Definition of Time, then it leads you to the Ball-of-Light Particle Model. In essence, this grand unification theory is built on three fundamental forces: electric, magnetic, and gravitational.

Electric & Magnetic

The electric and magnetic fields have already been unified in electromagnetics.

Gravitational

Using Einstein's General Relativity, gravity is unified to some extent. However, gravity is not unified with Quantum Theory.

Using the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, gravity is unified with electromagnetics directly. It becomes a quantum gravitational theory. All three of these fundamental forces are unified.

The Strong & Weak Forces

Prior to the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, the Strong and Weak forces were considered fundamental forces. But now, they become derived forces. The Strong force is composed of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields combining from two separate waves, the supperposition of two spherical electromagneticgravitational waves moving in opposite directions. The two waves superimpose on each other, creating a standing wave. The opposite fields so strongly attract and add to each other, that it gives the impression of one really strong force, rather than three separate forces combining.

The Weak Force is essentially a nonharmonic wave on the surface of a “ball-of-light.” This nonharmonic wave causes the particle to decay through electromagnetic induction.

(Topics on Unified Forces, Decay Modes, Strong and Weak Forces.)

Infinite Density vs. Maximum Density

It is common for physicists and astronomers to believe that “infinite densities” are possible. Keep in mind, this is only theoretical. Nobody has ever proven that an object with infinite density exists anywhere. Personally, I believe there is a “maximum density.” For example, the density of an elementary particle, like an electron, approaches a maximum density, or, the density of a “white dwarf” star approaches a maximum density.

Again, infinite density is an unproven belief. If you incorrectly assumed infinite density was possible — but this concept is actually wrong — then, this will dramatically change what you think is possible in atomic physics and in astrophysics. For example, a belief in infinite density leads astrophysicists to believe Black Holes are possible. There is no doubt, astronomical observations indicate there are very massive objects in the centers of galaxies. However, this is not proof that these objects have “infinite density,” or are even the objects referred to as “Black Holes.”

Every serious scientist needs to have a moment of contemplation ask themselves whether they believe in infinite density or if they just believe in maximum density. They need to answer the question, “Is there any proof that infinite densities exist anywhere?”

Topics on Density.

The Big Bang

Einstein's key equation E = mc² emphasizes that mass is a form of energy, and energy is a form of mass. Notice this equation puts no limit on the size of an elementary particle.

When the periodic table of elements is analyzed, it appears there is a limit to the size of atoms. It appears, above a certain size, the atomic nucleus become too unstable to make bigger particles.

It is theorized that some atomic nuclei were formed at the time of the Big Bang — in other words, they are “primordial.”

Some atomic nuclei are naturally formed from larger particles decaying into smaller particles. In my opinion, this topic is not emphasized enough.

(Topics on elementary particles forming from decay.)

In some cases, scientists have formed larger elementary particles using “synthetic” processes. At this time, there appears to be a limit to how large particles can be made. Above a certain size, the particles appear to be unstable and then decay back into smaller particles.

It is assumed that there are still some undiscovered particles that scientists will eventually be able to synthesize — in other words, they are undiscovered.

(Topics on synthetically forming atomic nuclei.)

In my opinion, particles can naturally form that are tremendously larger than currently envisioned. To summarize, I believe that there is no limit to the size of an elementary particle, but there is a limit to maximum density. These two ideas makes sense from the point-of-view of The Ball-of-Light Particle Model and lead to a new version of the Big Bang.

The standard view of the Big Bang states that it is a fact that all of the mass and energy of the universe suddenly materialized out of nothing — out of an infinitely dense and small “singularity” — creating “space-time” in the process, expanding faster than the speed of light in an inflationary phase, then, for some reason, instantly slowed to expanding at the speed light, gradually slowing in its expansion, until it somehow decided to start expanding faster due to a mysterious “Dark Energy.” Wow! Nice & simple, huh?

My theory of the Big Bang theorizes that all of the mass and energy in the universe was originally in one massive elementary particle that decayed from one particle into two particles, and then they each decayed further — creating an explosion expanding within space. Each half of the universe has a dominant “curl.” One half rotates in a predominantly “right-handed” fashion and predominantly contains “matter.” The other half rotates in a predominantly “left-handed” fashion and predominantly contains “antimatter.” From that initial fission, the universe has had extremely massive elementary particles that have been progressively decaying into smaller particles. In other words, the Big Bang has primarily been a process of fission — larger particles decaying into smaller particles.

What about the massive objects at the centers of galaxies? I do not believe it is a “fact” that they are “Black Holes.” Yes they are there, and yes they are massive, but I believe, the cores of galaxies are massive elementary particles, not black holes.

In my opinion, this explosion in space, this Big Bang, will eventully collapse back into its original single elementary particle — a “Big Crunch” — then explode again in a never-ending cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

The idea of massive elementary particles might, at first, seem far-fetched. However, it makes a lot more common sense than the standard view of the Big Bang. What seems more far-fetched? An infinitely small singularity with infinite mass? Or a extremely large elmentary particle, with a maximum density, and a specific diameter? (All you have to do is get over the idea that a massive elementary particle can be larger than yourself! This really is such a difficult concept to imagine if you have ever read Horton Hears a Who! by Dr. Seuss.)

(Topics on the Big Bang.)

The Structure of Our Sun and Other Stars

The Ball-of-Light Particle leads me to believe the core of our star is a massive elementary particle. This particle is slowly decaying — a form of fission. I believe the surface of the core is covered by a few large, low frequency electromagnetic waves, and many smaller, higher frequency waves. Surrounding the core is an electromagnetic gap. Outside of the gap is the outer plasma envelope of the star. The gap is a result of two opposing forces. First, gravity attracts the outer plasma envelope to the inner core of the star. Second, the electromagnetic fields on the core repel the electromagnetic fields of the elementary particles that form the surrounding plasma.

As the waves on the surface of the core move, they can “make” new elementary particles by electromagnetic induction. The core decays by steadily ejecting smaller elementary particles and photons.

On the inner layer of the plasma envelope, the plasma is hot enough, and dense enough for fusion to occur. However, this rate of fusion would be significantly lower than predicted by the standard model for stars.

[Note: think back to the “Solar Neutrino Problem.”]

There is more to this model of course, including how the planets influence solar activity, what sunspots are, and how sunspots are formed. I think this is an extremely interesting theory that can explain all of the “difficult” observations of stars that I know of.

Getting astronomers to adopt this theory will be the most difficult hurdle for me. I will have tons of opposition from astronomers.

[Note: As far as scientists go — in my opinion — astronomers are the most “close-minded,” and the least “scientific.” Keep in mind, a large percenage of astronomical theories are “pet” theories that are inherently, “untestable.” My definition for time and new theories endanger many old theories — but that is the price that must be paid. I am committed to advancing ideas, not the personalities in this field. Is the world flat? Does the universe revolve around earth? Are stars burning coal? What will future scientists think of current astronomical theories? In the future, many of the current astronomical theories will appear just as archaic.]

[Note, my $40 test demonstrates spherical electromagnetic waves exist. At present, astronomers simply have no test of Black Hole theory! Observations of small, massive objects provide no proof of the existence of Black Holes. They only provide proof of the existence of small, massive objects.]

If the BOLPM is correct, then many major theories in astronomy are simply wrong. If the BOLPM is correct, at some point in the next few years, we will have the first working fusion reactor. Suspended at its core will be a pulsating “mini-star.” Each time this Ball-of-Light pulses outwards — like a pulsating Cepheid variable star — it will produce electricity by pushing against the spherical electromagnetic, monopole, containment fields of the reactor. (This is a MHD process — magnetohydrodynamics.)

If the BOLPM is correct, at some point, there will be a bunch of astronomers standing around scratching their heads, wondering, “How is this possible?” (Again, if the BOLPM is correct.)

Remember, you only need to spend about $40 to test the Ball-of-Light Particle Model. Astronomers love to ask for millions of dollars for things like — a satellite to look for gravitational waves! (However, everybody can “see” gravitational waves! Gravity propagates in photons — like in the photons of visible light. Photons are gravitational waves — if the BOLPM is correct.)

(Topics on the structure of stars.)

(Topics on gravity.)

White Dwarfs

If my stellar model is correct, a “white dwarf” is essentially a massive elementary particle. Essentially, a white dwarf is a star without its thick outer layer of plasma.

My model of galaxy formation theorizes that the core of the galaxy — an extremely massive elementary particle — ejects smaller, but still massive elementary particles. Essentially, these massive ejected particles are the cores of stars. You could call these objects white dwarfs. However, most white dwarfs that can be seen in the universe are not newly ejected from a galactic core. Most, white dwarfs that are visible because their outer plasma envelope was ejected in a “Nova” event.

Again, at the core of stars is a massive elementary particle. Normally, you can't see it because of the plasma envelope that surrounds it. In a Nova event, this outer plasma envelope that hides the inner core is ejected. When this happens, we can see the inner core. Astronomers call these objects White Dwarfs. After the outer plasma envelope is ejected in a Nova event, the central object — the white dwarf — continues its decay process. As the white dwarf ages, as it decays, it creates “normal” elementary particles that collect and form a new plasma envelope around the white dwarf — around the core of star. This outer plasma envelope can again be ejected — blown away from the core — due to a collision event in another Nova event. Prior to the collision, the star has its outer plasma envelope. After the collision — a collision with a large object such as a moon or planet — the outer plasma envelope is blown away. This is called a “Nova,” and creates a “planetary nebula.”

(Topics on White Dwarfs, Novas, and Planetary Nebulae.)

Pulsars

If my theory of star formation is correct, a “pulsar” is actually a large elementary particle. The “pulse” of a pulsar is actually a very large, “primary” electromagnetic wave sweeping back and forth over the ball of light.

What triggered this pulse, this spherical electromagnetic and gravitational wave? A collision. Before becoming a pulsar, the star was moving in space. Then, it collided with another star or, possibly, a very large planet. (Essentially, in a Nova, a planet or moon collides with a star — in some extreme cases creating one pulsar. Essentially, in a Supernova, one star collides with another star — in some cases creating one or two pulsars in the single collision.) However, I believe for a pulsar to form, the collision needs to penetrate all of the way through the outer plasma envelope and collide directly collide with the core of a star. If the collision is more of “glancing blow,” rather than a “direct collision with the core” then the outer plasma can be ejected without creating a pulsar.

(Topics on Pulsars.)

Novas & Supernovas

If my theory of star formation is correct, then “Novas” and “Supernovas” are created by various classes of collisions in space.

Normally, in a nova, a star is hit by a planet, moon, comet, or some other large “non-stellar” object. I believe, in a nova event, a high percentage of the mass of the inner core of the star is preserved. While the core does decay somewhat to a smaller size, most of the core's mass is preserved.

Normally, in a supernova, a star collides with another star. I believe, in a supernova event, most of the mass of the inner core of one — or both stars — is converted to energy. The core(s) almost completely — or completely — decay in an explosive form of decay.

In this theory of supernovas, the classes of supernovas are determined by what types of stars collide, and by how much one or both of the cores decay. The brightest supernovas result when the cores of both stars completely decay — completely converting their mass into energy. In cases where one or both cores partly survive, pulsars are formed. If both survive, the two pulsars will be moving away from each other due to the collision.

(Topics on Novas & Supernovas.)

Galactic Clusters & Quasars

The Ball-of-Light Particle Model leads me think a Quasar is like a White Dwarf. (By extention, this implies a cluster of galaxies decaded from an elementary particle even larger than a Quasar!) Both Quasars and White Dwarfs are massive balls-of-light. The dimension of white dwarf — the core of a star — is much smaller than the overall diameter of the star it is embedded in — on the order of 1/10 the diameter of a star. The Ball-of-Light Particle Model leads me to think a quasar — the core of a galaxy — is a giant elementary particle that has dimensions that are magnitudes greater in size than a white dwarf.

In a typical star, a white dwarf is embedded in a plasma envelope. Over the life-time of the star, the outer plasma envelope of the star is created by the decaying core — by the white dwarf. The surface of the white dwarf has electromagnetic fields that sweep over it. These fields are key to understanding how a star develops over time. These fields induce photons — and many sizes of elementary particles. The bulk of the emitted particles are small: electrons, protons. However, some of these induced elementary particles are quite large — they are what cause sunspots. However, most of the typical elementary particles found in the outer plasma envelope of a star are small — electrons and protons. To summarize, as the core of star — a white dwarf — decays, it emits mostly smaller elementary particles — photons, electrons, neutrinos, and protons — creating the outer plasma envelope of a normal star.

On the other hand, the core of a qalaxy is much larger than a white dwarf. The core of a galaxy — a quasar — emits the smaller stellar cores — essentially white dwarfs — as it decays into a galaxy. While the core of a star typical emits photons, electrons and protons, a galactic core emits white dwarfs. The type or shape of a galaxy — elliptical, spiral, etc. — depends on the decay mode of the galactic core.

The decay mode of a ball of light refers to how the electric and magnetic waves on the surface of the elementary particle are moving. For example, in a harmonic pattern, the fields do not move. Thus there is no electromagnetic induction that would induce a particle to fly off of the surface of the ball-of-light. However, in a “split decay mode,” a nonharmonic pattern sets up over the equator of the particle. This pinches the elementary particle particle until it splits into two smaller particles — and photons. (There are other decay modes.)

[Note: Essentially, there is no difference between the decay of an elementary particle in a bubble chamber, the cecay of a stellar core, or the decay of a galactic core, other the massive difference in scale!]

Essentially, a Quasar is a galactic core in its early stage. One single galactic core — a massive elementary particle — can decay into billions of stellar cores via electromagnetic induction — creating a galaxy.

A galactic cluster would typically have a very large “parent galaxy” that ejects the smaller “child galaxies.”

[Sometimes, the main galactic core in a galactic cluster will split into two or more galaxies — so in the end, there is no massive, single, central galaxy in the cluster.]

A galactic core that ejects a quasar in one direction will often eject another quasar of approximately the same size in the opposite direction. (Equal and Opposite.) This would account for the large number of pairs of quasars that are observed on opposite sides of the central galaxy in Galactic Clusters.

(Topics on Quasars.)

(Topics on Halton Arp.)

Galactic Decays: Galactic Jets & Gamma Ray Bursts

The Ball-of-Light Particle Model leads me to theorize that the cores of galaxies are extremely massive elementary particles — not black holes. As these particles decay — there are different decay modes — they eject smaller elementary particles — essentially, the cores of stars. (In other words, the massive spiral arms in spiral galaxies are spiralling outwards, not inwards!)

[Note: There is ample evidence of ejections from the cores of galaxies. There is absolutely no evidence of any material spiralling into the center of galaxies — as if it is being sucked down the drain of a Black Hole. All “so-called” conclusive observational evidence actually supports more than one theory. For example, donuts of hot material spiralling around galactic cores does not prove Black Holes exist. There is zero evidence that only works for Black Hole theory. Let me be explicit. There is absolutely no evidence that proves Black Holes exist — Black Holes are only theoretical.]

I believe the cores of galaxies are decaying. They can decay in different modes. Thye can decay in a spherically symmetrical pattern creating massive spherical galaxies. They can decay in a bi-polar fashion ejecting massive spriral arms. They can experience collisions — creating massive galactic jets. They can decay explosively, creating massive “supernova-like” events we call “GRBs” — “Gamma Ray Bursts.”

I believe, when the core of a star — a white dwarf — explosively decays, it creates a supernova. When the core of a galaxy — a quasar — explosively decays, it creates a gamma ray burst.

(Topics on Galactic Decays, Galactic Jets, and Gamma Ray Bursts.)