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:

Interview with a learned solar neutrino physicist

Summary of visit with an eminent solar neutrino physicist at the University of Michigan:
My first and immediate impression of this learned man is an individual in the last days of his professional glory, finishing up his life's work. However, I find it intriguing that he believes neutrinos can be manipulated by microwave radiation - he is proposing that this is the reason there is a drop in neutrinos arriving from the Sun during sunspot activity. In this sense, he has faith in the Lead Dakota results, put forth by the late Raymond Davis. He exhibits daring and imagination, hardly the product of an ailing mind.
What I find problematic with his idea is that it lends itself to an ever-increasing complexity which becomes necessary to explain the observed phenomenon. Instead of considering the simple notion of a solar shell producing less neutrinos during high sunspot activity, we are expected to accept even more exotic behavior exhibited by elementary particles, new-found behaviors that need necessarily be discovered to explain events that may have their roots in an inability to re-check the basic precepts.

He writes,
"The angular size of the sun is 0.53 degree, so one needs the accuracy of 1 in 10^5 for cos(angle), in order to detect the variation of your effect. (The x axis of Fig. 11 that is mentioned in my previous communication is cos( angle).) It is impossible for some time. It would be another story if one improves the method of neutrino detection significantly. I believe that that may be possible in the near future, but I can’t tell you now."

And so I wait.

He seems to have little awareness of plasma physics, but it is not entirely his fault. In this sense he has dwelled his whole life in the cosmological cocoon concocted by an entire discipline locked in the mindset that plasma science is of little note and more importantly, gravity and mass are inviolate.
Consequently, it was a little like having a discussion with a Ptolemaic astrologer from a bygone age. He was very kind to see me, and had the consideration to follow up on my questions. A lesser man would have dismissed any thought of me once I left the room.

Here are the questions I took along with me:

1. The solar neutrino angle of incidence. I am presuming the collision between the neutrino and nucleus in the detector is traced backwards by a program in order to find the source of origin. Is this so?
2. How accurate is it? With better understanding, more data and better programming can one expect a smaller margin of error? (Not accurate enough for my needs, but this could change with time.)
   
3. Roughly, how many solar neutrino strikes have been detected to date? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? (Answer: Average, 20 per day.)
4. I have read that sunspot activity might be lowering the neutrino output. What is your opinion on this? (He believes the data is correct - which surprised me)
   
5. Also, neutrino strikes in detectors is lower while on the night side. Is this so? (The question didn't come up)
   
6. Neutrino oscillation, from Wikipedia:
   Caveats "The crux of the solar neutrino problem, and its resolution, lies in the fact that both the interior of the Sun and the behavior of traveling neutrinos is unknown to begin with. One may assume knowledge of one and determine the other by experiment here on Earth. If one assumes the Standard Solar Model is valid, one can derive the propagation properties of neutrinos, such as neutrino oscillations, given data from solar neutrino experiments. Likewise, if one presumes something about the propagation of solar neutrinos, one may derive some conclusions about the validity of solar models."
   Does this mean that the conclusions drawn are dependent on the hydrogen-fusion core model? (This was a tough question and I didn't expect a concise answer. I didn't get one.)
   
7. Have all three solar neutrino particles turned up, including Tau? (He said Tau turns up in laboratory experiments, but these solar neutrino flavors are changed when they his the earth's atmosphere)
   

Review of Donald Scott's "The Electric Sky"

Having written a review of Donald Scott's "The Electric Sky" on a site that takes a dim view of his efforts, in a moment of revelation I realized the moderator will in all likelihood give it a quick glance, then "click!" my musings would be relegated to the world of disassociated electrons. So, preempting my dissapointment, I took a moment to place the review on my own blog - where it actually belongs:

"Just finished Donald E, Scott's "The Electric Sky", loaned to me by a plasma physicist at the U of M.
I have also read a measure of your remarks and objections on this blog which seem both considered and well thought out.
If you will, allow me to impart a layman's thoughts.

It would not surprise me that many of the concepts inscribed within the pages of "Electric Sky" prove to be inaccurate at best, groping and fanciful at worst.
However, Scott and his compatriots seem to be forcing science into a new realm where the present august body of astrophysicists cannot, dare not follow for reasons that are all too painfully obvious.
Here in this blog you have taken upon yourself the worthwhile duty to do your worst, to reveal the errors in Mr. Scott's revelations, and I predict you will have a considerable measure of success for your efforts.

In my opinion, the content Electric Sky is sublime and reading it was like seeing the Universe through new eyes. This work will be scoffed at by our generation of astrophysicists, possibly even the generation after that, but these pioneering sleepwalkers will, over the march of time, have changed the course of science long after your justifiable objections have been proven."

Non-Space, Z-pinch and Gravimeters

Right now things are moving at quite a clip in my "Stevie Science" world. Here are the highlights:
Placing a query in the physics and astronomy forums, someone pointed out to me that the experiment that I was looking for, essentially a gravimeter placed near a z-pinch (a high energy electric discharge,) has recently been carried out with reportedly positive results.
("Gravitational Interaction on Quantum Level and Consequences Thereof") Truth to tell, there is so much gobbledygook equations in it that I can barely understand, but I think I get the gist.
I wrote the authors and got an answer back from S.I. Fisenko saying that it will be published shortly.
The physicist I visited at U of M - Dr. Ron Gilgenbach - told me that such an experiment could not be carried out without a published supportive theory to back it up. Well, if this gets published in a respectable peer-reviewed science journal then it meets the criteria for a repeat of the experiment. I'm hoping I can egg Ron into it, though frankly I will not be surprised if he just dismisses the whole thing. After all, I'm just an artist cook :-)

The import of this paper - if it is verified and if it is what I think it is - will turn the world of physics inside-out.

In related developments, Yukio Tomozawa, an eminent solar neutrino physicist from U of M, has agreed to an interview next Wednesday. I intend to ask him if there is enough detail in solar neutrino angle of incidence to be able to tell where on the Sun the neutrinos are coming from.