The New Plasmoid Paradigm

  • Chart Showing the Temporal Spacing of Paradigm Shifts in Physics at 80-Year Intervals

    As you can see in the above charts, the big changes of paradigms in physics happen along a regular pattern of 80 years of time. From Copernicus in 1505 to the formulation of the plasmoid paradigm in 1992, the time between each formulation of the basic principles of a major physics theory ranged from about 73 to 87 years. The average is 80 years.

    In 1992 as far as I know, I first formulated the current plasmoid theory. During the 1990s, the only people I knew who had ideas anywhere similar to mine were Matsumoto and Shouders. Matsumoto tried to introduce concepts about the microscopic ball lightnings and how they were involved in transmutation effects based on his understanding of quantum physics since he was trained in the theory and was familiar with it.

    Shoulders introduced some new hypotheses, some of which I think are valid, but he never developed or tried to introduce a theory himself. In 1992, I had a very basic theory about plasmoids. It is a general theory.

    Now in 2018, the field is sort of stagnant. There is a lack of good experimental evidence to enable me or anyone else to develop this paradigm's basic theory further. Good experiments have been done in this decade, but their results were mostly the same as those of Urutskoev, Savvatimova et al. in the prior decade and the results of Matsumoto and Shoulders in the 1980s and 1990s. The researchers who published in this decade seemed to lack time and better equipment.

  • I'm not sure how you choose what is considered to be 'revolutionary' ? A lot of things we might dismiss as 'techmology' are anchored firmly in scientific breakthroughs. And then there is the Manhattan project, digital computing, and so on. Definitely paradigm-shifting events. Don't these count?

  • Kuhn, in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, defined what he meant by the term scientific paradigm and also explained important shifts in physics theory paradigms. So when I write about revolutions in physics, this is what I mean.

    Every 80 years or so, an individual, surveying the start anomalies discovered by experimenters (usually of the generation prior to his, that is, people a generation (27 or so years) older) formulates entirely new conceptions of physics. Entirely new fundamental physical principles. Einstein did this with his concept of Quanta. Faraday did this with the concept of the "line of force" later called fields by others. For more information about what happens during paradigm shifts and the history of paradigm shifts, people can read my book online at under the book tab.

  • Proposing such fixed periodicity in a social phenomenon - assuming you were not cherry picking (and I would assume you are cherry picking) is itself a momentous scientific discovery. What is it about the world that forces major changes in scientific understanding every 80 years? I can think of no such mechanism, except something artificial like aliens implanting new ideas when their Stargate opens, with some unknown but possible mechanism making that only happen once every 80 years.

    Anyway, if what you imply is correct, perhaps you or Matsumoto have had some alien influence? Since there is not much historical record of this, maybe they would remove your memories of the encounter, but you might look back and find either blank areas of memory, or suspiciously boring and normal areas of memory.

    I find a lot of what I remember is suspiciously boring and normal. Maybe that is implanted as cover by aliens who have in fact been influencing me? Maybe the aliens influence lots of people, but only a few - like you and Matsumoto and Shoulders - have the right brain programming to turn this influence into revolutionary new scientific theories?

    In this thread you have opened up a whole new area of speculation. Fascinating.

  • What is it about the world that forces major changes in scientific understanding every 80 years

    Without arguing for a fixed periodicity in major changes in scientific understanding: 80 years is about the amount of time for a generation of scientists to be born, make their mark, hold back further progress and then leave the scene. :)

  • Isnt change accelerating in science and technology.

    It appears to be. The problem lies in assessing what discoveries are truly fundamental and which are incremental in effect. For example, mobile phone technology is an incremental advance, or perhaps a series of such advances, based (mostly) on developments in digital computing. It has produced huge social, economic, and probably political changes in society, but has involved very little by way of discoveries of any paradigm-changing 'new physics'.

  • Thanks for these comments. To help people understand what I am trying to describe here about an 80 year periodicity in physics paradigm shifts leading to the Kondratiev long wave (this is an original theory), please see my book at

    and also watch this video on the smartscarecrow channel if you want. I apologize though that it goes slowly. It was partly connection trouble and partly that I had forgotten key names, dates, and events in the history of science. I didn't brush up well when I made this video.

    Video image

    But from watching that, people will gain an idea of what a physics paradigm shift is (according to Kuhn). It is a very fundamental change in physics theory, and it doesn't happen any more frequently than 80 year intervals on average.

    The development of physics isn't accelerating. In fact, I think this field of CF/ball lightning/plasmoids etc. is lagging and stagnating. Most people still don't believe any of this.

    I would like to help people understand this theory and how I define words, but please watch the video. It should answer a lot of questions. I want to see that people are seriously considering what I'm saying before I answer questions. This will require people to do some study since it is an entirely new idea.

    But the history of science and economics is quite beautifullly rhythmic, and you might enjoy studying it.

  • What science has recently discovered is that charge, spin, angular momentum, and particle location, can be separated from a particle and act independently. Also, these properties can be blended with other particles to form new behaviors of these property combinations. These hybrid properties are what produces strange radiation in LENR.

    "This will require people to do some study since it is an entirely new idea."

    One theory of superconductivity requires the understanding of a copper pair of electrons. What is this copper pair, how does it form, how can it form?

    How can an electron be massless and still be superheavy?

    What we need are teachers who can explain these behaviors. OK smart guys. let's hear what you have to say.

  • Ed Lewis wrote:" I think this field of CF/ball lightning/plasmoids etc. is lagging and stagnating"

    Russia is such a wonderful country with great men and women scientists

    "Long-lived plasma formations in the atmosphere as an alternative energy source"

    Authors: Maxim Dvornikov (1 and 2), G. Sh. Mekhdieva (3), L. A. Agamalieva (3)

    1 N. V. Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere, and Radio Wave Propagation, Moscow, Russia

    2 National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia

    3 Baku State University, Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan


    (Submitted on 29 Nov 2017)

    Abstract: A model of a stable plasma formation, based on radial quantum oscillations of charged particles, is discussed. The given plasmoid is described with the help of the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation. A new phenomenon of the effective attraction between oscillating charged particles is considered within the framework of the proposed model. The possible existence of a composite plasma structure is also discussed. Hypothesis about using the obtained results to describe natural long-lived plasma formations, which can serve as alternative energy sources, is put forward. "

    "In addition, the high temperature of the plasma at the center of the (1mm) object,

    needed to melt glass, is an indication that the given structure does not get its energy from chemical reactions"

  • path.jpg

    A theory must make testable predictions. My theory is about why the process of scientific revolutions in physics is periodic and how scientific revolutions in physics cause economic depressionary eras in economies or Kondratieff waves. In the early 1990s, on the basis of the theory, it was clear to me that this decade of the 2010s would be a depressionary era. What I meant by the term "depressionary era" was that there would be a period of economic depression or deep recession in the leading technological countries.

    Back in the 1990s, it wasn't clear to me which countries would have the technological leadership now. The US is the technological leader now. I predicted in the 1990s that the deep recession or depression era would start about 2009 in the most technologically advanced economies. A predicted a 1929 style market crash, a jump in unemployment, and other economic effects similar to those of the 1920s Great Depression in the US.

    In the fall of 2007, I tried to publish an article warning people that the economic deep recession or depression era was about to start, but the only magazine or journal that published it was Infinite Energy. I'm posting a link to this Letter to the Editor here ( It was published in the May 2008 issue before the crash and the deep recession started.

    At that time, most economists were saying prosperous times were ahead. Very few individuals at that time were predicting a depressionary era was at hand.

    This accurate prediction helps to verify this theory. I wrote a number of other articles in the decade of the 2000s that you can see under the Economics tab in

    Information about the chart: This chart was made about 2002 or so. A few years ago, I added in the last grey area that represents this current deep recession/depression era. I wanted only to show the past Kondratiev trough eras by creating this chart then. The curvilinear line represents the secular labor productivity growth rates in the US. The eras of deep recession or depression happened when the labor productivitity growth was accelerating as in the late 1920s and when there were productivity growth dearths such as in the 1970s and early 1980s and in the 1880s and 1890s. The chart also shows the times of industrial revolutions in the leading economies: the 1780s to the 1810s, the 1890s to the 1910s, and the 1970s to the 1990s.

  • Ed Lewis

    To make this an interesting theory you must outline why you include some revolutions but not others in your timeline. Your choices appear arbitrary to me. For instance, why not include revolutions outside of physics?

    And if, for some reason, require these revolutions to be physical then why include Copernicus on your list? This was a revolution in astronomy and cosmology, as Kuhn describes in one of his books, but I don't see what physical principles are involved. And if the Copernican revolution is to appear on your list then why not the Wegenerian theory of Continental drift? I contend that the acceptance of continental drift meets every single criterion that Kuhn set out for a scientific revolution and is just as physical as heliocentric orbits.

    It seems to me that your revolutions are chosen not on an objective basis but because they produce the 80 year periodicity that you want.

    Finally, as to predictions. Your 2007 prediction of a financial crisis to happen in 2008 is not impressive. I recall lots of similar predictions in 2007 following the subprime mortgage collapse.

  • In the 3rd industrial revolution, Jeremy Rifkin propose that Industrial revolution involve two technology revolution, on energy, and on information.

    this is a concept quite different from scientific revolution, but I think it may be more interesting to consider for cycles.

    I did not read the book, and quickly I see the following revolutions :

    • writing and agriculture
    • printing and coal/steam
    • electricity and telegrah
    • oil (diesel too) and radio
    • nuclear energy and transistor
    • Internet and... not finished. maybe that is the problem with pretended secular stagnation.

    I would also add transportation to the duo...

    • writing, agriculture, horse
    • printing, coal/steam, railway
    • electricity, telegraph, and what transportation ? steamboats? hum...
    • oil, radio, diesel cargo, car
    • nuclear energy, transistor, plane
    • internet, no energy, no vehicle..

    need more work