Dark matter Illusion - Hey! Where is MY validation?

Dark Matter Is an Illusion, New Antigravity Theory Says
National Geographic News

Is there some reason the scientific community doesn't review the web before they publish?

Splashed all over national Geographic News, this guy Dragan Hajdukovic essentially publishes the tenants of my paper, "Can Gravity be Induced? without so much as a nod of recognition, yet such concepts would not even be considered today were it not for my thirty years of work I have dedicated the subject.

Simply put, my concept of the induction of gravity is being railroaded.

I admit it is easy to do. I am not affiliated with the science community, my training is in fine Art. My idea, "Can Gravity be Induced?" (1979) was distributed to friends and colleges in the science community 1979. It was considered so absurd that it was deemed "fringe science" by the science community.

Nonetheless, if you type "Can Gravity be Induced?" and "Stephen Goodfellow" into a Google search engine, you will find about 3,160 results. Is my work really that hard to find? I have been active, interacting with plasma physicists for thirty years. Just because my concept was not deemed worthy of publication in a scientific journal does not mean that it is not valid. Thanks to the web, I was able to place my paper very early on, for all who wished to see.

If you need a specific entry that addresses this specific issue, you will find my comments on the Dark Matter illusion here on my blog May 6th, 2010, "Further thoughts on the Induction of Gravity" which states,

Dark energy: Particles in intergalactic space reach exceedingly high speeds and on those rare occasions when they collide, these produce temperatures of millions of degrees. At the moment of collision, a tiny amount of gravity/non-space is momentarily produced but collapses immediately, lacking any means of sustaining itself. However, by virtue of the volume of colliding particles over vast regions of space, a 'field' of gravity is maintained. Might this not explain the phenomenon that we call 'dark energy'?

Looking through the notes of his paper, I see no references to my work. You might say it is just sour grapes on my behalf, and you'd be correct. I have been espousing the induction of gravity over span of three decades and delineating how it comes about, together with suggested empirical, repeatable laboratory experiment.

I have already had to deal with a previous episode in which a Russian scientist actually accused me of stealing his work. Turns out he published in 1995, sixteen years after my paper and eight years after I had placed it on the CompuServe system, which ultimately was placed on the web. Easy to find, just didn't bother looking.

When it comes to a modern interpretation of the Induction of gravity, at least have the courtesy to give a nod to the grandfather.

Somewhat pissed off,
Stephen Goodfellow

Dark Matter & Absolute Vacuums

Dark Matter and Absolute Vacuums have similarities - and differences.

Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic media. In October 2010, llídio Lopes and Joseph Silk published an article in the journal Science, proposing that Neutrino Spectroscopy Can Probe the Matter Content in the Sun.

Absolute Vacuum theory (“Can Gravity be Induced?”, Stephen Goodfellow, 1979), suggests that under specific physical conditions, absolute vacuums are maintainable and that these ‘reverse singularities’ induce gravity, a production of gravity without a corresponding mass. Goodfellow’s theory proposes that the Sun’s interior is a gravity inducing absolute vacuum, sheathed in a magnetically sustaining super-hot plasma shell, the absolute vacuum interior impervious to mass/energy/space - including neutrinos.

Both models claim to block neutrinos.

The main differences between the Dark Matter and Absolute Vacuum models, is that the dark matter proponents visualize these mysterious particles being pulled into the Sun’s gravitational core over time, blocking neutrino activity in the core.



The Absolute Vacuum hypothesis maintains that the Sun's ‘non-space’ interior blocks neutrinos from the opposite side of the solar shell so that they are unobservable.



Which hypothesis best fits the observational data?

The answer is to be found in the neutrino record, as this data accumulates.

According to dark matter proponents, solar neutrinos must come from deep inside the Sun, in a hypothesized massive core.
Neutrinos in the absolute vacuum solar model propagate near the visible surface of the Sun, the Sun's actual mass being distributed in an exterior shell, the internal absolute vacuum generating induced gravity, responsible for the majority of the Sun's gravity.



To summarize, the dark matter hypothesis should exhibit a central cluster of neutrinos whereas the absolute vacuum model would exhibit a halo of neutrinos. It will be interesting to see which proposal corresponds with future observational data.

Dark Energy - Non-space induced Gravity?

Dark energy: Particles in intergalactic space reach exceedingly high speeds and on those rare occasions when they collide, these produce temperatures of millions of degrees.
At the moment of collision a tiny amount of gravity/non-space is momentarily produced but collapses immediately, lacking any means of sustaining itself. However, by virtue of the volume of colliding particles over a vast region, a 'field' of gravity is maintained. Might this explain dark energy?

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 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.