empirical - adj. Capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment***
pantheism - n. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena***
animism - n. The hypothesis holding that an immaterial force animates the universe***
Imagine for a moment, god-like creatures looking down upon the Earth, creatures who's time consciousness is accelerated, so that to them our 24 hour day was no longer than that of a heart beat. They might view these glowing cities that spread over our planet as mere crystals, and could justifiably make quanta predictions on the sustainability their growth, based on the lub-dub of their pulsations: five beats caused by our 9-5 traffic, with the two pulse pause created by our weekend. To these gods, the business of individuals could only be resolved by their mass movement along roads and freeways and the gods might - correctly so - speculate that this flow could be considered as discrete packets of mass/energy. As with quanta mechanics, the model is limited by the belief that the only important factor is what the bulk of the packets are doing at any given moment...but you and I know that other factors are in play. Between the 9 to 5 lub-dub of our traffic flow, during the dead of night sanitation workers and vital resources that make a city run are on the move. These are errant particles that quantum mechanics do not account for and consequently these gods only have a stilted picture of the actual reality.
In my opinion, this is a problem that 21Century physics has to come to terms with. Quantum mechanics is an artificial overlay of reality, and it may well be that vital forces of nature are being overlooked because of the faith we have placed in our statistical calculations.
Hmmm! I've got an idea that was inspired by my WayBack Machine rant. A WIkipedia without organizing and censoring administrators, because - as I was writing about the WayBack machine - I came to realize that ALL human generated data is useful. With the exception of a small administration that essentially controls repetitive spamming, Aidepikiw.com - or EvertbodysGotSomethingToHideExceptForMeAndMyMonkey.com or whateveryouwanncallit - is intended as a topic based free-for-all battle of opinions and statements, no matter how accurate or outrageous. If managed properly, I bet it would become more popular than Wikipedia- nay - more popular than the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - and all within a few years, too! The key is a search capacity that reaches down through successive layers of editings (nothing is ever really overwritten) so that you can reach down deep and pull the information you are looking for. For example, under a controversial topic, say, UFO's you could gather info on how many entries were pro and anti, what facts and arguments are presented. This is the problem - and the Achilles Heel of the present Wikipedia - It is defined through the eyes and sensibilities of its administrators, a filter of contemporary - and thus temporary - standards that claim to be empirical and thus in error, but even more damning - such an approach is censoring and even more heinous, it's boring!
Web archaeology will be a major profession some decades down the road. This is what I predict their synopsis of the WayBack Machine will be:
"...The WayBack Machine is the foremost resource for early web research by web archaeologists. This rich database stretches from 1996 until 2008, at which time the organization reverted to the pre-web concept of categorization. This was a mindset failure which left the years from 2008-XXXX a corrupted record. We now understand that the whole concept of raw data classification is counter-productive for two fatal reasons:
1. The scope of the Human experience is so vast that it defies classification.
2. The individual volunteers invited to administer the categorization of the database were creatures of their own time, complete with their own unique preferences and biases.
Perhaps the change was influenced by the Wikipedia method of knowledge storage which they mistakenly thought applied to their own dicipline. In their defense, the progenitors of the change were dealing with an inordinate quantity of data which grew at an exponential rate each year, and the demise of the WayBack Machine may have been thought up as an act of necessity. Be that as it may, the decision to revert back to a pre-web method of knowledge storage, rendered their data from that point on a severely damaged and unreliable resource, except in the field of web psychology, who have inadvertently been offered a vast resource and have gained remarkable insights into the psyche of those administering the database..."
A few months go, I was accused of plagiarism. With a few deft keystrokes, I was able to PROVE that my work preceded my accusers by many years. This was all done with the help of the WayBack Machine. Alas, no longer can we rely on such a a simple, yet ingenious method of data discovery - it is being done for us by our contemporary 'experts'.
If I had submitted my data in the present context, it would most likely have been dismissed by those administrating for lack of proper classification - and my accuser would stand unchallenged.
-So goodbye WayBack Machine, and thank you so much for being there. I - and I suspect future generations of web researchers - will miss you.
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!
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 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! -
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
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.
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.
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."
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:
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?
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.)
Roughly, how many solar neutrino strikes have been detected to date? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? (Answer: Average, 20 per day.)
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)
Also, neutrino strikes in detectors is lower while on the night side. Is this so? (The question didn't come up)
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.)
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)
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."
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.
I am in Ithaca, visiting my in-laws and reading "Electric Sun" which was loaned to me by Dr. Ron Gilgenbach
The "Electric Sun" gives a much more convincing argument than the Hydrogen-Fusion core model, the author even suggests that nothing is gong on in the Sun's interior, although he only does so in a manner of speech; if he only know how correct he is!
The main flaw of the "Electric Sun" is sadly similar to that of the hydrogen-fusion core theory, sad because plasma physicists ought to know better than to surrender to the original preconceived concept that the Sun is a gravitationally bound ball of matter. After painstakingly describing how the electromagnetic plasma forces completely dominate over the gravitational force, why do they meekly surrender to the idea that the Sun is a gravitational ball of mass. Any way you cut it, bringing together a significant amount of mass such as that needed for a proto-star in space is going to cause significant angular momentum, which in turn will, yes, cause gravitational contraction. But this contraction will result in violent heating long before the proto-star mass can coelesque into a ball. High temperature heating combined with angular momentum will create a dynamo effect. Powerful plasma double layers will occur. In force of the electromagnetic moment of the plasma will way outstrip any gravitational consideration - and yet even the plasma physicists cannot rid themselves of the last vestige of the gravitational boga-boo.
It is time to go back to beginnings and see the universe through new eyes.
Here's the text: Non-Space, Is Gravity being Induced? A Challenge to Plasma & Neutrino Physicists 2009
Hello, my name is Stephen Goodfellow. Does Non-Space exist? Can gravity be induced? This video is an invitation, a challenge to plasma physicists and solar neutrino physicists. I will be the first to admit that the concept of Non-Space and gravitational induction is so outrageously preposterous, that I would not have made this video, if the concept did not rest on a plasma laboratory experiment that could be performed within the limits of contemporary technology, and an observational neutrino prediction that ought to be possible in the foreseeable future.
What is Non-space? Consider the theorized black hole, an over-abundance matter falling in on itself becoming a gravitational sink that not even light cannot escape from. It is useful to think of Non-Space as being on the other end of this spectrum. Non-Space is a condition in which space is vacated from a volume. Thus, it is not an empty space, it is a volume empty of space. This Non-Space volume causes exterior space to implode gravitationally upon its boundary. It is a violent reaction as space attempts to close up the non-space, and in doing so, annihilates mass into energy as it presses in upon the Non-Space boundary. How can Non-Space come about? Non-Space is achievable with a high energy plasma. A high energy plasma imbued with a dynamo effect causes electrons to disassociate from protons. These then act within like camps, electrons with electrons, and protons with protons, each particle contributing its magnetic moment to the whole. I believe it is the repulsion of these like camps that disturb the fabric of space, allowing for the appearance of gravitationally inducing Non-Space.
The plasma experiment would consist of a high energy plasma discharge, coupled with a gravimeter: An appropriate gravimeter device placed close enough to a Z-pinch discharge, will demonstrate a minute but measurable, momentary increase in the force of gravity towards the discharge, and in doing so, demonstrate that gravity can be induced without a corresponding quantity of mass. A successful outcome of this experiment will have far-reaching implications, because it will confirm a direct link between the electric, magnetic and gravitational forces. Furthermore, Gravitational Induction will have fundamental implications upon the very foundation of contemporary physics, in that the experiment demonstrates that the relationship between mass and gravity are not inviolate.
From the many inquiries I have made over the years, I am given to understand that this experiment has not as yet been performed, nor is anyone other than myself expecting this result. I liken it to Hans Christian Ørsted's accidental experiment, when he happened to notice a compass needle jump when inducing a current through a wire.
Solar neutrinos: The observation I seek, is a compilation of solar neutrino data: When compiled, it will show that the angle of incidence of solar neutrinos emanating from the Sun will be expressed in a concave graph rather than a convex graph. A convex graph, is what one might expect from a standard model of the sun, with neutrinos emanating from the Sun's center. The concave graph which is what I am predicting, will demonstrate that neutrinos are emanating from the shell and atmosphere of the Sun, and not from its core. To my knowledge, no one is expecting a concave graph.
The data will infer that the Sun is a magnetically constrained Non-Space volume. This volume is sustained by an exterior shell best described as a magnetically unified high energy plasma. The interior volume of Non-Space induces gravity, causing the Sun's shell to continually implode. This implosion of the Sun's mass releases energy, magnetically sustaining the Sun's interior volume of Non-Space. I make no claim as to the particular nuclear chain reaction leading to solar energy output, merely that it is distributed in a shell, gravitationally crushing in on the Sun's interior non-space.
A Non-Space solar interior would also explain why sunspots are dark rather than light, and why strong magnetic fields are associated with these lower depressions in the Sun's photosphere. Also, an expanded solar shell of matter with a Non-space interior would account for the Sun's slow rotation, in that the rapid expansion from a smaller, dense proto-star to larger shell would slow its angular momentum.
Now, I expect significant skepticism for these extraordinary claims, and I realize that the experiment and observation might well return a null result, rightfully condemning my contemplations to the historical trash-heap of absurd ideas. Consider though, that the plasma experiment is achievable with our present technology, and I suspect at a relatively reasonable cost, and the solar neutrino data-collection ought to be feasible the foreseeable future.
It would be a great shame not to perform the plasma experiment, for if by the slimmest chance the experiment produces a positive result, is that not in itself enough incentive? And, if the proposed experiment, with the potential seed of a positive result languishes, would history not condemn today's plasma physicists for their reticence? Would we have to wait, leaving the discovery to a future generation, a generation who would look back and mock you?
I think it is appropriate to say, I am looking for my Eddington. Are you that Eddington? Thank you so much for taking the time to watch this. Goodbye.
The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is the bulwark of stellar evolution, but consider this little story:
An umpire is standing in a crowded stadium. Upon his nose is an intelligent wart. This wart desires to know the process of evolution of its host, the umpire. To aid itself in this quest, the wart observes the other people in the stadium. Although the wart cannot see, it is able to monitor the heartbeats and blood pressure of the people present. Armed with this information, the wart constructs a graph upon which it now places its data.
The Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, where luminosity is replaced with blood pressure, and temperature with heartbeat.
The wart now mistakenly believes that by comparing people in this manner it has acquired a system that displays a sequence of evolution from birth to death. The graph displays no such information; it merely describes the momentary state of excitement of the people in the stadium.
Published in Science News, Vol. 177, Mat 17th, 1980
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
"An Empty Sun - Is Gravity being Induced?" A proposal suggesting that the Sun is a shell of sustained charged plasma encasing a non-space/absolute vacuum sphere that induces gravity. There is a FAQ page here
