Solar vibrations and Simulations

Helioseismology is the study of rhythmic oscillations observed on the 'surface' of the Sun.

In order further our understanding about what is going on, laboratory experiments are being performed on models, in an attempt to create on a smaller scale as to how the Sun might be propagating these oscillations. Most of the oscillation research that pertains to helioseismology interprets the origin as a single oscillating source, namely a fusion core, and so much of the research only considers one oscillation source, to mimic the proposed fusion core. But what if the Sun were merely a sphere of hydrogen with a non-space interior, as proposed in "Can Gravity be Induced?"

What would happen if we were instead to consider two oscillating sources, one originating from the North pole using a hollow, partially vacated sphere, and another source of oscillation placed at the South pole? (See Illustration)

Imagine if we could generate waves from the North and South poles. Tweak them so they are slightly out of sync so they create wave interference in the equatorial region, much like the momentary vibration caused by two ship propellers slipping in and out of sync. Would that not look a lot like the 11.11 year solar sunspot cycle?

It is difficult for the trained solar scientist to consider a non-space Sun, because it transgresses our pre-conceived conception of gravitational behavior, basic tenants that have unfortunately become entrenched dogma, holding that gravity and mass are inviolate. Indeed, experiments demonstrate this to be true for solids, liquids and gasses - but little to no experimentation has been performed in this realm on the 4th state of matter, namely super-hot plasmas. This is a shame, because over 90% of the Universe is in this state.
Imagine a scientist listening to a live symphony in an orchestral hall. The scientist is now blindfolded and we switch out the orchestra and replace it with a high quality reproduction. The scientist cannot tell the difference. In the same manner, how does a scientist know if the object is a Sun with a dense interior or a empty shell? All the scientist has to go on is past experience, and I suggest that in this case the experience is faulty.

What is left to us is to attempt to infer by experimentation if we are observing vibrations welling up from a dense hydrogen/fusion solar interior, or are we looking at a maintained solar plasma shell crushing in on sustained subterranean magnetic fields?

Sakharov's Induced Gravity, 1966

Having spent thirty plus years contemplating gravitational induction, it was perhaps only a matter of time before I was to come across Sakharov's "Induced Gravity", which he wrote in 1966.
I doff my cap to his realization that gravity may have a means of being induced.
Reading his paper makes me feel a little like a bull in a china shop, in that it is only with great difficulty that I can grasp the abstract, let alone the equations. This is not Sakharov's shortcoming, but mine.

The clear delineation between Sakharov's approach to the subject of gravitational induction and my own contemplations, is that Sakharov presents the issue in pure theory, whereas my work is at the material end, offering a means by which gravitational induction can be brought about physically, through high energy plasma configurations, a means to directly observe the phenomenon.
Sakharov paper mentions Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations once in the footnotes, but no applicable imposition exists throughout the actual paper, whereas Absolute Vacuums are the cornerstone of my work. Sakharov sees a vacuum in the conventional sense as 'a space with nothing in it', whereas my definition of a vacuum is 'a volume with no space in it'. The difference is significant.
Sakharov never mentions high energy plasmas in his paper, the means with which I believe Absolute Vacuums may come about.

Furthermore, in my thesis of gravitational induction it is not necessary to delve any deeper than the atomic level, rather than the more complex behavior of subatomic matter. Although higher atomic elements surely play a part which I am hitherto unable to discern, most of my reasoning is based

on the fact that the Sun - and the Universe - is for the most part hydrogen; one proton, one electron. The Absolute Vacuum, or non-space part of my hypothesis suggests that the plasmas capacity to create magnetic repulsion of like particles is capable of 'sweeping' space away, creating the conditions for non-space.
Finally, perhaps because of my less eloquent and more pedantic approach to what after all is a fantastic notion that requires extraordinary proofs, I offer a prediction of an as-yet unobserved natural phenomenon on the nature of solar neutrinos and a repeatable laboratory experiment.
Sakharov who is a respected theorist and physicist, expresses his ideas in mathematical formulae, whereas my background can be traced to the mud of visual natural history, in the case of gravitational induction I am inspired by Hans Christian Ørsted. Both approaches are an attempt to tease out secrets from the natural world; I believe mine to be a little more of a 'show me' nature.

Ultimately, I suppose the difference of our approach to gravitational induction is that his concept may be proved or disproved by strokes on a blackboard, whereas my conjectures will stand or fall by observational evidence.

I am glad to find there are others - and in this case a great scientist - who holds the belief that gravity can be induced without a corresponding quantity of mass.

Absolute Vacuums or Non-Space made easy...

I can't count the times I have winced when someone has exclaimed, "Oh! So you're telling me the Sun is hollow?"
For this reason, I have created this little vignette. It is a simple thought model that offers a rudimentary outline of Absolute Vacuums, or Non-Space. The explanation does not go so far as to explain how these are maintained against the implosion of space. For that, you can read
"Can Gravity be Induced?" which I wrote in 1979.

...If you got this far and have not fallen asleep, here is my ten minute video that goes into a little more detail:

Can Gravity be Induced by an Electrical Discharge?

As I reflect over the past thirty-odd years data-gathering and contemplating the possibilities of inducing gravity, I find that the process realizing gravitational induction has been as much alchemic as empirical.
And there lies the rub.
Being on the cusp of attempting to convince and organize the necessary individuals and institutions in an attempt to realize the electrical discharge/laser experiment, I find that the observational evidence I have at hand is so absurdly fantastic as to be scarcely creditable to the uninitiated mind. Three hundred years believing gravity is in direct proportion to mass is a very tough mindset to overcome.
Empiricism, all-be it crude, is presently the only tool of objectivity that reasonable individuals can mutually agree to, and only a direct, repeatable laboratory experiment will suffice.
The evidence at hand, demonstrating that an electrical discharge contains the elements that allow for the induction of gravity (producing gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass,) simply lacks credibility. It is in effect a closed loop: the circumstantial evidence is unbelievable, thus, the experiment cannot be performed by responsible scientists without their committing professional suicide.

Consequently, instead of relying on thirty years of information gathering, I intend to embark on a simple line of reasoning, essentially cloaking a wolf in sheeps' clothing. It is in this manner that the finished paper appear for publication.

The proposal for the experiment proceeds upon two lines of argument:
A. Discussing the brute nature of an absolute vacuum, where one might seek out the phenomenon, then illustrating this in a practical means by pointing out the unusual behavior of dissociated electrons and protons imbued with a dynamo effect, how during the moment of electrical discharge, electrons and protons separate into like camps of same polarity, electrons with electrons, protons to protons. That these two repelling camps then interact with one another, the force being sufficient to create disturbances in the space fabric, creating momentary absolute vacuums. The force of the inward collapse of these absolute vacuums being indistinguishable from the force of gravity, de-coupled from a corresponding quantity of mass.
Admittedly the argument stretches credibility. It is not unlike the Montgolfier brothers attempting to increase buoyancy of their balloons, mistakenly believing lift was due to the quality of smoke, when in actuality is was merely the heat achieved by combustion. Keep in mind however that despite this mistake, their balloons nonetheless rose from the ground.

B. If, as the reasoning for (A.) points out, the implosion of absolute vacuums is indistinguishable from gravity and that implosion is a result of a phenomenal amount of energy release, then it seems reasonable to ask, can this phenomenon be observed in nature? In other words, does an electrical discharge contain gravitational properties?

Fortunately, it is a question that can be resolved by a constructing a fairly unsophisticated laboratory experiment.



Simply put, the experiment consists of a laser passing close to a large electrical discharge, terminating at a target sensor. At the moment of discharge, the beam will gravitationally bend towards the electrical discharge. Three results are predicted to be present at the laser target:

1. Conventional reasoning would state that a beam of photons are not effected by electromagnetism and must proceed unhindered towards the target, which should register no movement or qualitative change during the electrical discharge. However, I predict the laser will exhibit a gravitational shift towards the discharge, and will register this movement at the target sensor.

2. The 'bend' in the laser beam at the moment of discharge ought to exhibit a small redshift, as its path between the laser and the target has been extended.

3. As the vacuum collapses it may produce additional repeatedly diminishing electrical discharges, the energy dispersing much like that of a bouncing ball. This 'echo', illustrated by a series of diminishing redshifts ought to be present at the target, if the sensor is sufficiently sensitive enough.

I believe this approach gives a line of reasoning that responsible individuals may commit to. The conceptual simplicity of the experiment combined with a realistic chance for a successful result, may tempt the more adventurous individual.

To demonstrate that light can be gravitationally distorted without the corresponding quantity of mass would be nothing less than sensational news to the science community, and should it turn out to be a null result, it would confirm the present paradigm. To the professional researcher contemplating this experiment, a null result would pass with little comment by the science community.

Gravitational Induction Experiment

The diagram above describes (figure 1) the standard electromagnetic model, as conceived of since 1820 when Hans Christian Ørsted discovered the relationship between the electric and magnetic. Since photons have no charge there is no electromagnetic imposition by the discharge; the beam of photons proceed undisturbed towards the target.

(Figure 2) is a challenge to the figure 1 proposition; it supposes a gravitational relationship between the light beam and the electromagnetic discharge, in that the author argues that the nature of the discharge also includes an induced gravitational element. This scenario suggests that the beam will bend towards the electrical discharge and the attraction will be indistinguishable from gravity, demonstrating that gravity can be induced without a corresponding quantity of mass.

If figure 2 proves correct, it suggests that gravity can be manipulated on an atomic, rather than a subatomic level, which is much easier to achieve. Should figure two give a positive result, it implies that gravitational applications may be rapidly achievable. The author argues that the experiment demonstrates that non-space, or absolute vacuums play a dominant role in everyday physics.

To the best of my knowledge, the experiment has as yet not been performed but ought to be relatively easy to construct, combining a plasma discharge (perhaps a z-pinch?) with laser optics which have recently seen great improvement in measurement accuracy.

Sincerely,

Stephen Goodfellow

Further thoughts on the Induction of Gravity

Hans Christian Ørsted with assistant. Notice compass on the table

It is often said that if one is determined to find truth, then go back to the source. In this case, the source is an accidental experiment performed by a Danish scientist called Hans Christian Ørsted.
On 21 April 1820, during a lecture, Ørsted noticed a compass needle deflected from magnetic north when electric current from a battery was switched on and off, confirming a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism.
This experiment became the bulwark, the foundation of our theories and concepts of electromagnetism, the underpinnings of our theoretical and applied sciences.

What was NOT discovered at that time nor since, is whether there was a simultaneous induction of gravity. This is not as amazing an idea as it sounds. Scientists have believed since the age of empiricism that all the forces of the Universe are in some way inextricably linked, yet to this day no one has demonstrated a direct relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic.
It is not is surprising that gravitational induction may have passed unnoticed for so long. The force of gravity is 1 x 10 to the 39 times weaker than magnetism, so that if the forces are proportionate, the induction of gravity of Ørsted's experiment would be very hard to measure indeed.

With the advances in our ability to produce large electrical discharges, such as a z-pinch, combined with a laser optical precision capable of monitoring the slightest gravitational disturbance of a beam, would it not be possible to repeat the experiment and confirm one way or the other if there is a gravitational induction? To my knowledge this has not yet been attempted, which is surprising considering what is at stake.

Since I have offered a means to make my proposal falsifiable, I will briefly explain the rudiments of gravitational induction:
Gravitational induction may be brought about by the temporary 'tearing' of the space-fabric. These momentary 'rips' may be considered absolute vacuums, or non-space. Put simply, non-space can be considered the opposite end of the black hole singularity concept, in that the absolute vacuum is an absence of mass/energy rather than a concentration thereof. The only way we can determine the existence of an absolute vacuum is by the behavior of the space-fabric surrounding it. If you have difficulty understanding the concept, think of it like this; 'hollow' is a space with nothing in it. 'Empty' is a volume with no space in it. The space-fabric attempts to annihilate the absolute vacuum, and the nature of this implosion is gravitational. Hence, we have an instances in nature where mass/energy/space may be gravitationally attracted without a corresponding quantity of mass.

If gravity is being induced, then several pieces of natures puzzle fall together without calling upon extraordinary additional particles or other intangible subatomic forces:

• 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'?

• Red Shift: Entertaining the above-mentioned, that it is the collision of particles that are inducing gravity, could it be that as one looks towards the event horizon, the 'weight' of so-called empty space begins to accumulate, causing the spectral redshift?

• I have also spent considerable time wondering why our Sun behaves as it does, but that is the topic of another article on another forum

Curiously, looking back on my thirty years of speculation I appear to have begun my journey, throwing myself into the complex realm of solar observations, only to find the possible falsifiable answer in Ørsted's accidental experiment, performed 190 years ago. Is life not wonderful?

Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated,

Stephen Goodfellow

Hunting for the induction of Gravity

Hans Christian Ørsted

It is often said that if you are looking for truth, you must go back to the source. In this case, the source is an experiment performed by a Dane called Hans Christian Ørsted.
On 21 April 1820, during a lecture, Ørsted noticed a compass needle deflected from magnetic north when electric current from a battery was switched on and off, confirming a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism.

This experiment became the bulwark, the foundation of our theories and concepts of electromagnetism, the interplay between magnetism and electricity.

What was NOT discovered at that time nor since, is whether there was a simultaneous induction of gravity whenever the current was switched on and off. This is not as amazing an idea as it sounds. Scientists have believed since the age of empiricism that all the forces of the Universe are in some way inextricably linked, yet to this day no one has demonstrated the link between gravity and the electromagnetic.
It is not is surprising that gravitational induction may have passed unnoticed. The force of gravity is 1 x 10 to the 39th times weaker than magnetism, so that if the forces are proportionate, the induction of gravity of his experiment would be very hard to measure indeed.

The question is, with the advances in power and precision that we have in our possession today, could we repeat the experiment to confirm one way or the other if there is a gravitational induction?

Vacuum, mass/energy & gravity

It struck me this morning. The simplest concept I have ever thought of, so simple I had to write it down in case I forget it:

The foci of an absolute vacuum gravitationally draws in space and converts it into mass.

Energy is an observational byproduct, with the caveat that if the absolute vacuum becomes large and powerful enough to become a closed loop, it will trap all energy, making the phenomenon unobservable by direct means.

This is in accordance with the absolute vacuum, as described in "A Vacuum Sun"
A proto-star, a concentration of mass inaugurating nuclear fusion, or it's equivalent. In the core of the proto-star, electrons and protons are disassociated and organize within their like camps, electrons with electrons, protons with protons.
It is the nature of these like particles to repel one another, leaving an absolute vacuum in their wake.
The attractive force of absolute vacuum is indistinguishable from gravity.
The new star expands, leaving this absolute vacuum in its wake.
The repelling camps of electrons and protons create a magnetic bottle, maintaining the absolute vacuum within as long there is energy to sustain it.
The magnetic bottle surrounding the absolute vacuum interior is sustained by the gravitationally imploding mass/energy/space which continually implodes upon the interior absolute vacuum.
The exterior boundary of the absolute vacuum is a factory, fusing space into electrons and protons - basic elements of matter. If able to escape the boundary, they may associate, creating hydrogen atoms.

Consequently, space is not only being gravitationally 'bent' towards a given star, it is also being consumed with mass as a byproduct.
See also "Non-Space, Is Gravity being Induced? A Challenge to Plasma & Neutrino Physicists"

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...

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.

"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