What a great database...it was?

Please understand, I'm just a casual user and I only have the vaguest knowledge of recent evolution of the Wayback Machine.

But I have this to say. I'm disappointed.
Perhaps it is due to the sheer burden of archiving such voluminous material that the method for collecting data has been forced to change, I don't know. It would appear that, like empirical scientists you now break down everything into distinctive topic matters, just like Yahoo. (Is that why I use Google now?)
Please follow my string - I'll get back on topic shortly - I loved it when these carpetbaggers came into my local community in Highland Park (one of the poorest neighborhoods in Michigan) in an attempt to literally steal the city's water utility (designed by Henry Ford in 1915)
These business thieves had hidden their tracks well, removing their previous 'business venture' websites in an attempt at a clean slate. Fortunately, with a quick check on the Wayback machine I was able to find their past dealings and bring it to the attention of the Highland Park Council before it was too late.
It would not be an exaggeration when I say that were it not for the Wayback Machine, Highland Park would have found itself in a heap of trouble.

I also liked the fact that it was general: On the Wayback Machine you could just submit your site and that was it. It was perfect for someone such as myself to whom the term 'generalist' could be applied. Some folks have even jokingly called me a renaissance man because of my wide scope of interest upon which in which I like to create or comment.

So where do I fit in this new defined scheme of things?

I've made my living as a full time fine artist, but my medium is unique and does not fit your categories. My interest in the sciences - thirty years worth - is for the most part completely heretical, yet my ideas are followed by some of the World's most knowledgeable plasma physicists. My website contains my animations, lyrics, music, movies, community sites. My webserver is a veritable feast of disparate delights, a confusion of disciplines that is subtly connected. My website IS my art.

Is there room for me in this New Order?

Couldn't but help notice that the Wayback Machine discontinued tracking me after 2008. Perhaps one of you 'experts' saw me for what I was - a messy unclassifiable conglomeration that does not fit the new matrix - DELETE!

Why nuking the Sun is a very bad idea

Letter to the future,

"The Sun is NOT s bowling ball. It's a balloon"

Stephen Goodfellow 2009

Please note that this document - written in December of 2009 - was created before anyone came up with the stupid idea of nuking the Sun.
If you need proof of this, please go to archive.org and check on the voracity of this statement. Consequently, this is plainly a proactive document, not a sensationalist reactive attempt to play upon peoples fears.
The preemptive date should give you pause for thought, and let it be noted that the author wrote the following because it is the nature of Mankind to try everything that has never been tried and while usually comfortable with this philosophy, this is the one case where it is a very, very bad idea.

Please note that you are reading this precisely because no one has ever launched a nuclear warhead at the Sun, and should some government or institution ever take it upon themselves to enable such an insane project, then

You have no choice other than to stop them!

Should you fail to do so, then you and everybody you know, and the whole Human Race, and all the animals and plants that dwell upon the surface of planet -

Are all going to die!

The government or institution that dreams this insane project up will consist of learned scientists who will claim they know how the Sun functions.
They do not.
If they did, they would never dream of performing such a foolishly irresponsible act. Unfortunately, complacent arrogance is the lot of institutionalized scientific endeavor and it is this which makes it so dangerous. They will smirk at any arguments associated with the danger involved in what they wish to attempt and will claim that these arguments are not on a sound scientific footing.
For this reason, I will make a running start at the observational contradictions that pertain to the solar hydrogen fusion core theory.

Put simply, if you prod a bowling ball with a needle, no harm comes to the bowling ball... ...but it you prod a balloon with a needle, the balloon will burst.

The danger lies in the fact that the vast majority of solar physicists are convinced that the Sun is a large gas ball, getting ever denser towards its center. Upon such an object, little or no effect would be discerned were one to trigger a nuclear blast.
But what if the Sun's mass is distributed in a thin shell? Upon such a body, a pin-point nuclear blast could have disastrous effects.

The scientists who will forward a project as dangerous as this, will have learned their trade by rote and will be little more than glorified priests, smug in their myopic knowledge, a circular reasoning founded on shaky assumptions. Their air of authority will impress those who are able to secure the resources necessary to make their deadly project a reality, and it will be your duty to convince these people of power that the so-called scientists should not be allowed to proceed with their hair-brained venture.

Let us say for the sake of argument that their assumptions about the nature of the Sun have a 90% chance of accuracy. 10% error? Would YOU take such a gamble with your life? Would you allow everyone on Earth to take that chance?

The horrible reality is that the chance of their assumptions being correct are zero.

Here then, are some basic contradictions in the hydrogen fusion core theory that make it so patently absurd:

• The Sun's atmosphere is hotter in its exterior layers than its lower ones.
  This is a contradicts the law of thermodynamics. Would you not be surprised If you were in a room with a pot-bellied stove which you discover when brushing up against the cast iron appears to be cooler than the surrounding air?
• Sunspots
  Sunspots are depressions on the Sun's photosphere are cooler and darker than the surrounding shell. If the sun's energy were emanating from the interior, ought sunspots not be brighter and hotter?
• The solar rotation
  According to the accretion theory of the solar system, like a spinning ice skater drawing in their arms, the Sun ought to have the lion's share of angular momentum, yet the outer gaseous giants hold the majority of spin. The Sun's rotation is way too slow. It has been argued that the Sun's rotation has been slowed down by 'magnetic braking', yet Jupiter with its intense magnetic fields rotates at a healthy clip.
• Solar magnetic loops
  Despite the Sun's intense gravitational field, magnetic loops consisting of high energy plasmas show no distortion due to the Sun's strong gravitational pull. The potential force of high energy plasma is 1 x 10 39th power stronger than the gravitational potential, a fact completely ignored by proponents of the hydrogen fusion core theorists.
• Controlled nuclear fusion - the lack of it
  Despite over fifty years of concerted effort, fusion researchers have not succeeded in creating sustained nuclear fusion. The chief reason for this is the inability to contain the magnetic instabilities that appear in the trapped super-hot plasma.
  

If any of these items give you the slightest pause for thought, that PERHAPS these scientists don't know quite as much about what's going on with the Sun as they think they do,

Then they have no business putting our planet at risk
by launching a nuclear warhead at the Sun!

Consequently,

You MUST do everything in your power to STOP THEM!
- Or you will DIE! -

The movie - "I learned it on YouTube!"

I learned it on YouTube

I can drive a freight train
Operate on your brain
Grease a pig with Jiffy-Lube
- I learned it on YouTube

I can build an H-Bomb
Stretch the head on a tom-tom
Distilate jet-fuel from crude
- I learned it on YouTube

Ask me how - to fire up a light house
Ask me how - to steal cheese from a door mouse
Ask he how - My hands are clasped in Crazy-glue
- I learned it on YouTube

I can truss and roast a duck
Commander a dump truck
Dress a cat up as a shrew
- I learned it on YouTube

Ask me how - I open a banana
Ask me how - I tranquilize a llama
Ask me how - Turn the llama into tasty stew
- I learned it on YouTube

I'm a disciple I've discerned from this Bible that God is a UFO
Those creatures'll seize ya, they'll prod and they'll squeeze ya
They don't care if you have to go

I've learned there's no hope
I've learned to smoke dope
I've learned.........I've learned to Twitter!

It explains why I'm a couch potato
A cave slave bound up all in chains by Plato
My life is just a shadow - one big screw
- I learned this on YouTube

Show me how - steal Photoshop with peer to peer
Show me how - Lifting MP3's while drinking beer
Show me how - Learn to live if you don't have a clue
- I learned it on YouTube

Tells me why - Forty-two and I still live at home
Tells me why - Girls don't like me and I live alone
Tells me why - I'm feeling like a worn-out shoe
- I learned it on YouTube
- I learned it on YouTube

Accused of plagiarism and Piracy!

I am not accustomed to peppering my writings with exclamation marks, but in this case dear reader, I have made an exception - and you shall see why.
Last month my Google Alert popped up with my "Absolute Vacuum" search - and there, in one of my favorite science forums was a posting by a Russian, a Mr. Constantine Leshan, who was accusing me of stealing his ideas about absolute vacuums in my paper, "Can Gravity be Induced?". I noticed as well that my posts on absolute vacuums had been removed by the moderators of no less than two science forums.
It took only moments to realize that not only was Mr. Leshan shooting from the hip - he was also shooting himself in the foot, because his claim of 'his idea' was published sixteen years after my paper had been written. Once this was realized by the forum moderators, my postings were rehabilitated and on one of them Mr. Leshan was kicked off.
My ideas on absolute vacuums have circulated within the science community for close to two decades and although there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Leshan developed his ideas on absolute vacuums separate from mine and in good faith, there is no telling what currents and eddies might have influenced him. Although annoyed by the accusation, I was intrigued that there was someone else who had come to similar conclusions about the nature of absolute vacuums and the induction of gravity, and thought it might be worthwhile to engage in discourse, once this misunderstanding had been cleared up. With a little web sleuthing I found one of Mr. Leshans many email accounts and wrote to him, asking if there was a chance of rapprochement.
No such thing.
To my utter amazement, he accused me of - get this - hacking into various servers and placing my paper on them and forging the date! And this, after various moderators had done their own searches and pronounced me bona fide. Over several emails I attempted to assuage him by offering many direct proofs for the authenticity of my paper, but he would have none of it. Towards the end of our discourse I believe he was somewhat convinced that my paper was published in 1979, but unfortunately this realization of his was manifest by a whole new tack, in that he now attacked me with the wacky accusation that I was plagiarizing René Descartes instead!
Finally taking the council of friends, I broke off communication with Mr. Leshan. I can only conclude that this individual is unbalanced and suffering from paranoid delusions of persecution.

Personally, I don't care who thought of this idea first.
If there is someone else out there who came up with the notion before me that super-hot plasmas within a dynamo effect are capable of creating absolute vacuums that can induce gravity and that the Sun is an example of this phenomenon - well, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. But I sure as hell am not going to put up with being accused of plagiarism and piracy by someone who published their paper after mine was written and circulated. The whole episode has been a frustrating waste of my time and energy.
To avoid any such nonsense in the future, I have created this video in which a sealed, post-dated letter from 1981 with my paper enclosed, was opened before a notary public, a stamp and paper expert and two sworn witnesses. To reach the largest audience possible I have also had it translated into Russian. Complementing the video, I have also made public further evidence which I have placed on my server, surely enough to convince any reasonable individual of the facts.
You can find the email correspondence with Mr. Leshans accusations here.
So let that be the end to it.

Is the Gravitational Constant linked to the Sunspot Cycle?

Why is the Gravitational Constant so sloppy? Is it merely measureing error, or is there room to argue that the constant may fluctuate between the 2nd and 4th decimal?

Before posting these questions on the baut forum, I checked the Bautforum for previous posts, the most relevant one seems to be this query in aid of a seemingly dead-end contentious debate, which was of little help.

Following a reference link from Wikipidia's page on "Gravitational Constant", note this excerpt from the abstract:
"...G stands mysteriously alone, its history being that of a quantity which is extremely difficult to measure and which remains virtually isolated from the theoretical structure of the rest of physics. Several attempts aimed at changing this situation are now underway, but the most recent experimental results have once again produced conflicting values of G and, in spite of some progress and much interest, there remains to date no universally accepted way of predicting its absolute value..."


The measurements seem surprisingly sketchy when considering that most Universal Constants can be measured to the 8th to 10th decimal.

For reasons out of the blue, I took it into my head to place the year that Gravitational Constant measurements were taken in relation to the sunspot cycle. Needless to say, this data is thin to the point of being laughable, but still - an amusing thought:

Gravitational Constant measurements on the Solar Cycle, coinciding with the dates of the measurements:
Luther 1982 Torsion pendulum 6:6726 § 0:0005 75
Fitzgerald 1995 Torsion balance 6:6656 § 0:0006 90
Schwarz 1998 Free fall 6:6873 § 0:0094 1400
K¨undig 2002 Beam balance 6:67407 § 0:00022 200

Notice the smaller result during low sunspot activity.

Plasma physicists gate-crash the Cosmologist party...

Cosmologists who imagine the Universe solely from a gravitational consideration are in for a rude awakening...

Cosmville...

Here is a picture I created depicting the absurdity of Cosmologists who are either unaware or ignore the science of plasma physics: