Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
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.
"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:
- 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)
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"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."
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 3, 2009
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.