Monday, August 3, 2009

Non-Space, Is Gravity being Induced? A Challenge to Plasma & Neutrino Physicists

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 ├śrsted'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.


Gabsicle said...

I'm just a college student, but this is incredible!

Constantin said...

I can prove that every proposition in Goodfellow’s Non-space paper repeats the old theories, therefore it is plagiarism. For example Christiaan Huygens (1669 - 1690) explains gravitation by that bodies must consist mostly of 'Empty Space' (or Non-space) so that the aether (space) can penetrate the bodies easily, which is necessary for mass proportionality. According to Huygens the Sun must be empty; it is a cause of gravitation.
Ivan Yarkovsky in 1888 proposes his aether stream model, he argued that the absorbed by bodies aether might be converted into new matter (energy), leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies. Thus, according to Yarkovsky the flow of space into Empty Sun is the source of Sun’s energy. Another 'space (ether) flow into sink' theory has been proposed by Newton in 1675. Similar to Newton, but mathematically in greater detail, Bernhard Riemann assumed in 1853 that the gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid and normal matter represents sinks in this aether. There are a lot of “Space flow into sink” papers published in mainstream journals; Robert Kirkwood had published advanced mathematical aspects of the 'flow space (ether) theory in mainstream journals from 1939 through 1954. Goodfellows’s paper repeats the same idea: space and matter flow into (sink) Empty Sun and it is a source of Sun’s energy.
There are “Empty Sun” theories published in journals, for example:
(Energy of stars and the Hollow Sun)
It is another Empty Sun theory (in Russian):
Flowing Space into sinks by Henry H. Lindner

In my view, there are over 100 theories of Space Flow Into Sink, Space burn to produce energy, and Empty Sun-like theories (including Russian theories). The first Empty Sun theory precedes Mr. Goodfellow’s paper by 400 years. Since Goodfellow’s theory repeats the old theories, consequently it is plagiarism.

gfellow said...

I first learned of Constantin Leshan in 2009, when I accessed my favorite science and astronomy forums to discover that he had denounced me as a plagiarizer, that I had stolen my information from his paper, dated 1995. Fortunately, I was able to direct the administrators to several sources, confirming that my paper was online via Compuserve in 1987 and that his accusations were groundless. Consequently, he was banished from one forum and censored on the other. He then disappeared altogether, closing his email address.
Furthermore, one can observe from his papers that his approach to the subject has no parallel to my own. He never mentions the importance of high energy plasmas. He refers to the solar interior as 'hollow', which I have never done. 'Hollow' is a space with nothing in it. My research concerns itself with the absence of space; a volume with no space in it. To the casual observer the difference would seem inconsequential, but it is the defining difference between our two philosophies.
I wish Constantine Leshan success with his research and hope that it yields fruit.