Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: gfellow on 07/09/2009 03:03:23
-
Moderators Note: This topic was split from "Is it possible to create an absolute vacuum?" in the section "Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology"
Hi,
Sorry for belatedly coming across this thread on absolute vacuums, but the topic is of great interest to me, so I thought I'd add this addendum..
Non-Space - predictions, proofs and implications
Abstract:
Non-Space, a gravitationally inducing natural phenomenon, can be demonstrated to exist in a laboratory experiment. A solar prediction is also offered.
Note to this forum:
In reading this, please accept this in the heuristic spirit in which this overview is submitted. It is a thumbnail sketch and leaves more questions in its wake than it answers. However, I believe the concept submitted here is provable under lab conditions and will also be supported by a solar neutrino observation. There are two videos on Youtube that illustrate the idea, "An Empty Sun - Is Gravity being Induced?" and "Non-Space, Is Gravity being Induced? A Challenge to Plasma & Neutrino Physicists"
Does Non-Space exist, can it induce gravity?
I will be the first to admit that the concept of Non-Space and gravitational induction seem at first glance to be outrageously preposterous. After all, the three other states of matter, solid, liquid and gas exhibit no such qualities, and from these observations we have assumed a universe in which gravity is inviolate. However, to date no plasma scientist has looked to see if a high energy plasma discharge induces gravity. The concept of Non-Space rests on a plasma laboratory experiment that could be performed within the limits of contemporary technology, and an observational solar neutrino prediction which I am told will be forthcoming 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 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. This condition can be a momentary, or a sustained phenomenon.
What evidence is available to demonstrate the existence of Non-Space?
If Non-Space comes about at the moment when dissociated electrons and protons contribute their magnetic moment to the whole, then this ought to be observable. I propose that a gravity measuring device be coupled to a high energy plasma discharge, such as a z-pinch. If I am correct, this will demonstrate a minute but measurable momentary increase in the force of gravity towards the discharge and in doing so will 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, because the experiment will demonstrate 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, and that there is no one other than myself who is expecting a positive 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:
A compilation of solar neutrino data 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 electrical or 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.
Conclusion:
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 I am to understand that the solar neutrino data-collection ought to be available the foreseeable future.
Science tacitly assumes that the forces of nature are unified. 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 should the proposed experiment with the potential seed of a positive result languish, 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 us?
Sincerely,
Stephen Goodfellow
-
I invite you to see the review of Goodfellow's paper (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ad0CfTg8AqBWZGZqanhxY21fMGZndHJjNW0z&hl=en). Goodfellow's "Solar model" is a "Perpetuum Mobile" which extracts energy from "nothing"! I don't found any logical reasoning in his "paper"; it is a collection of postulates that appear from nothing only. Goodfellow is not able even to copy correctly a sentence from textbook. My conclusion: Goodfellow's paper "Can Gravity Be Induced" is a free fantasy only, it is not a physical paper in general.
Therefore I'll remove partially my "accusations" because it is not a physical theory in general - maybe it is a fairy tale, poem or story, but not a physical paper. Therefore it is no sence to discuss these items with Goodfellow. How I can compare Goodfellow's writings with Huygens theory if I don't found any logical reasoning in Goodfellow's writings?
Also Goodfellow's "scientific activity" is very doubtful and non-scientific. Usually authors submit their theories to Journals and conferences; there are many journals which publish papers without any peer review. Nevertheless, Goodfellow do not have any publications; he appears suddenly in 2009 with his powerful advertising campaign and "Proof of Authorship" as sealed letters; He begin to publish intensively posts about Non-space in 2009 only; Such behavior is very doubtful; He had a lot of time (30) years to publish his posts in Youtube, Thunderbolts Forum, PhysForum Science, thenakedscientists.com ets before 2009. I can explain the appearance of his peak of activity in 2009 by publication of my new papers only. Also, the websites and sealed letters are not the proofs - every hacker can falsify (substitute) the contents of website. Thus, Goodfellow's activity is very doubtful and non-scientific. Usually pirates use such methods only to grasp ideas and theories.
-
Here may be some innocent questions....
Can we make an absolute vacuum?
My understanding of absolute zero is that it can only be achieved in the absence of any particles (you know, everthing), thus the total absence of energy. Is it possible to combine these two to create absolute zero?
Do you mean, does the zero-point energy field mean the absence of particles at zero-point? Well, not entirely. Zero-point is like a limit which can never be reached, because even at zero-point energies, motion still exists, because there is a massive amount of energy residing for any quantum oscillator.
The zero-point energy field will i think come to act as the absolute aether - something which Einstein said was needed within the framework of general relativity.
-
Stephen Goodfellow’s post about Non-space/absolute vacuum sphere that induces gravity is a plagiarism and piracy. He repeats the statements of my hole gravitation theory published in 1994 at ICPS physics conference. This theory was supported by Soros Foundation in 1995. There is description of my theory in Teleportation Physics Study by US Air Force. I have a lot of proofs that Stephen Goodfellow’s post is a piracy. I ask the administrator to delete Stephen Goodfellow’s post about Non-space/absolute vacuum because it is a piracy. It is a third attempt to steal my theory already. I registered hole (absolute) vacuum and gravitation theory in Russian Authors Society in 1994 and I have author’s rights for this theory. It is a very large theory, I published about 15 papers in different journals and conferences. Whereas Stephen Goodfellow repeats only some my words about absolute vacuum. He is not able to develop this theory; he is not the physicist in general.
My theory about absolute vacuum is very attractive for pirates because it allows teleportation and time travel. It is very easy to become a piracy author of theory. First the pirate selects an interesting paper and republishes the main idea. Then pirate ‘builds’ some false proofs that he is the “author”. I ask the entire world to protect my theory from pirates.
Some links to absolute vacuum and gravitation theory:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leshan_Leshan_Time_travel.pdf
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leshan_Leshan.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf
http://www.gravity.uwa.edu.au/amaldi/papers/Leshan.pdf
I am sorry C. Leshan feels that way. Before he casts aspersions, perhaps he ought to do some research first. My paper, written in 1979 "Can Gravity be induced?"
http://goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi
This paper can be found in many locations throughout the web and precedes Mr. Leshan's paper by sixteen years. I am cognizant that fundamental ideas seem to appear when the time is right and often several people realize them in the same time-frame. Newton and Leibniz feuded about which one invented calculus, for example. I urge C. Leshan not to shoot from the hip and accuse individuals of plagiarism just because he finds someone who has an idea that agrees with his own, especially when he publishes the concept sixteen years after the accused author.
-
Here may be some innocent questions....
Can we make an absolute vacuum?
My understanding of absolute zero is that it can only be achieved in the absence of any particles (you know, everthing), thus the total absence of energy. Is it possible to combine these two to create absolute zero?
Do you mean, does the zero-point energy field mean the absence of particles at zero-point? Well, not entirely. Zero-point is like a limit which can never be reached, because even at zero-point energies, motion still exists, because there is a massive amount of energy residing for any quantum oscillator.
The zero-point energy field will i think come to act as the absolute aether - something which Einstein said was needed within the framework of general relativity.
Why is my post above here? I had nothing to do with ''this theory''.
-
I can prove that every proposition in Goodfellow's "Non-space" paper repeats the old theories, therefore it is plagiarism.
Holetel is very eager to disprove my proposition. He first attempted to have my post removed from the site by the moderator, insisting that I had plagiarized and pirated his work. Only after this failed did he begin to attack my paper "Can Gravity be Induced?" (http://goodfelloweb.com/cgbi) piecemeal, because he realizes that any acceptance of my work would mean his own work is not original and he would have to reference the above-mentioned paper in his footnotes. Becoming a 2nd stringer can be a hard blow after believing one was the creator of an idea.
Here are some links that Holetel offered up as "proof" of my plagiarism, written by him sixteen years after my paper:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leshan_Leshan_Time_travel.pdf
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leshan_Leshan.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf
http://www.gravity.uwa.edu.au/amaldi/papers/Leshan.pdf
For example Christiaan Huygens (1669 - 1690) explains gravitation by that bodies must consist mostly of 'Empty Space' so that the aether (space) can penetrate the bodies easily, which is necessary for mass proportionality. Thus, according to Huygens the Sun consists mostly of 'Empty Space' or Non-space, it is a source of gravitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
Huygens was a great and insightful scientist, and in his age he did much for the advancement of our knowledge. However, suggesting my paper is a plagiarism of Huygens theory of vortexes would be like accusing Johannes Kepler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_kepler) of plagiarizing Aristarchus of Samos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) merely because Aristarchus was the first to espouse a heliocentric system...
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.
Ivan Yarkovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation) - his aether stream model argued that the absorbed aether might be converted into new matter, leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies. (Hypothese cinetique de la Gravitation universelle et connexion avec la formation des elements chimiques, Moscow)
...This sort of comparison demonstrates that my detractor is grasping at straws. No reasonable individual who read my paper would infer a direct lineage to this proposal...
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 in mainstream journals; For example Robert Kirkwood had published advanced mathematical aspects of the 'Space (ether) flow into Sink' 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 gravitation and Sun's energy.
There are "Empty Sun" theories published in journals, for example:
(Energy of stars and the Hollow Sun) http://www.e-pag.com/discovery/quantum_astronomy.htm
No date for the paper given in the abstract. Furthermore, anyone reading your description would see that it bears no resemblance to my paper ...
It is another Empty Sun theory (in Russian): http://physics.nad.ru/newboard/themes/14235.html
As best I can gather, the publishing date of this posting is 2002, which would be twenty one years after my paper...
Flowing Space into sinks by Henry H. Lindner http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8041/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
There are many "Space flows into sink" old books (theories) in Moscow State Library.
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.
Thus, I can prove that Goodfellow's theory repeats the old theories, therefore it is plagiarism.
First, the paper is not dated. Secondly, try run a search using the words, plasma, absolute vacuum, or shell through Henry H. Lindner's paper and you will draw a blank. These are key concept words associated with my paper. Again, it's an Aristarchus/Kepler comparison.
Also Goodfellow's "scientific activity" is very doubtful and non-scientific. Usually authors submit their theories to Journals and conferences; there are many journals which publish papers without any peer review. Nevertheless, Goodfellow do not have any publications; he appears suddenly in 2009 with his powerful advertising campaign and "Proof of Authorship" as sealed letters; He begin to publish intensively posts about Non-space in 2009 only; Such behavior is very doubtful; He had a lot of time (30) years to publish his posts in Youtube, Thunderbolts Forum, PhysForum Science, thenakedscientists.com ets before 2009. I can explain the appearance of his peak of activity in 2009 by publication of my new papers only. Also, the websites and sealed letters are not the proofs - every hacker can falsify (substitute) the contents of website. Thus, Goodfellow's activity is very doubtful and non-scientific. Usually pirates use such methods only to grasp ideas and theories.
The last refuge of every scoundrel. If you can't best your opponent within the confines of acceptable conduct, then slander and defame.
First, I am a unrepentant layman, not a professional scientist. Consequently, I have other interests. Although I have kept up a lively correspondence via email on this topic, I've not addressed this topic on the web, although this does not mean that I have been idle (http://goodfelloweb.com/nature/ideas/crazy_ideas.htm).
It is indeed true that "Can Gravity be Induced?" has not been through the accepted scientific grind. I am an artist, and the paper was written in that context. However, that does not in any way make it any less empirical. Back in 1979 when I wrote and distributed my paper, the concept would have appeared positively outlandish because it challenges one of the most cherished foundations of contemporary physics, namely that mass and gravity are inviolate. What reviewer of peers would possibly allow nonsense like this - written by an artist - to pass into a respectable journal?
Instead, in 1980 I had a one-man art exhibition called "Solarium (http://goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi/proof%20of%20Authorship/images/proof%20of%20idea/lowrez/solarium%201980_lr.jpg)" in which I illustrated the concept in detail and distributed my paper widely to students of Detroit's Wayne State University. I also sent my paper (http://goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi/proof%20of%20Authorship/authorship_affidivits.html) to friends and scientists in various disciplines, creating a large body of correspondence spanning decades. Exhibiting in my profession is tantamount to publication, it is proof of work.
I also placed the paper on the Compuserve system back in 1987. Here is a record of it (http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/KEELYNET/GRAVITY/gravity4.asc). You can find other references using Google search.
Realizing that I might have stumbled upon an idea that lesser individuals might want to make their own, I made a habit of posting a sealed copy of my correspondence to myself.
Because of this attack I will, in front of a paper expert, a Russian translator, two witnesses and a notary, open three of these letters from 1979-87 which include my paper, "Can Gravity be Induced?" This will be videoed and placed on my Youtube site (http://www.youtube.com/stephenpgoodfellow), that "powerful advertising" means that my detractor mentioned. I ought to have it ready by the beginning of November. Then you, dear reader can be the judge.
-
There is a review of Goodfellow's paper "Can Gravity be Induced (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ad0CfTg8AqBWZGZqanhxY21fMGZndHJjNW0z&hl=en)".
First I invite you to read Goodfellow's paper and "review (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ad0CfTg8AqBWZGZqanhxY21fMGZndHJjNW0z&hl=en)". He proposes an Perpetuum Mobile as a source of the Sun's energy! First the matter falls into the Sun’s empty interior after that all solar plasma jumps back and the process repeats; This closed cycle is a source of the Sun’s energy: it is the violation of energy conservation laws. Goodfellow’s “solar model” do not use any kind of fuel as source of the Sun’s energy; In his imagination the energy appears from “nothing” in the closed GRAVAC cycle.
This "paper" is a free fantasy only; I don't found any logical reasoning in Goodfellow's writhings. It is a collection of propositions that appears from “nothing”, therefore it is not a physical paper. According to Goodfellow's fantasies, the Sun's nuclear fusion and pressure are able to separate protons in one camp and electrons in other camp! Author wrote: "It is significant that electrons and protons can organize into separate camps, because like particles of the same charge repel one another".
Such processes are forbidden by conservation laws, the Pauli exclusion principle ets. Electrons and protons are fermions, therefore the Pauli principle forbids to electrons and protons to "organize into separate camps", electrons with electrons, and protons with protons. Physicists never observed experimentally "that electrons and protons can organize into separate camps". And all his paper contains such fantasies only.
I have found that the author is not able even to copy correctly a sentence from textbook. For example he quotes Gamov’s book, page 138: “The electromagnetic potential of a given quantity of mass in a plasma state is 1 X 10 to the 40th times stronger(1) than its gravitational potential.” While Gamov wrote in the same page 138: - the ratio of the two forces is 10^40. You see, Goodfellow is not able even to copy correctly a sentence from a textbook. It is physically incorrect and erroneous to compare the potentials (of a given quantity of mass) of gravitation and electromagnetism, we must compare the ratio of two forces. (Especially because plasma is electrically neutral.)
My theory is totally different concerning Goodfellow’s theory. There is coincidence for words “absolute vacuum” only. However, my notion of “absolute vacuum” has different properties concerning Goodfellow’s notion. I develop the Descartes notion of “absolute vacuum”. Therefore I have nothing to do with Goodfellow’s proofs of authorship. Besides Goodfellow’s paper is not a physical paper; he must show his “proofs of authorship” to science fiction writers which use his “absolute vacuum” inside of stars. However, even science fiction writers don’t needs in Goodfellow’s "theory" because the ideas about "Empty Sun" and "Flow Space gravitation" were proposed by Huygens, Riemann and Newton about 400 years ago.
About Goodfellow’s proofs: criminals are able to prepare the false passports, documents, notarial records and even money. Criminals can prepare a lot of the high quality false sealed letters during some days and 500$. Then we will, in front of a paper expert, a Russian translator, two witnesses and a notary, open all these letters. I can prove mathematically that it is a deceive; therefore I do not believe it.
-
There is a review of Goodfellow's paper "Can Gravity be Induced (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ad0CfTg8AqBWZGZqanhxY21fMGZndHJjNW0z&hl=en)".
First I invite you to read Goodfellow's paper and "review (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ad0CfTg8AqBWZGZqanhxY21fMGZndHJjNW0z&hl=en)". He proposes an Perpetuum Mobile as a source of the Sun's energy! First the matter falls into the Sun’s empty interior after that all solar plasma jumps back and the process repeats; This closed cycle is a source of the Sun’s energy: it is the violation of energy conservation laws. Goodfellow’s “solar model” do not use any kind of fuel as source of the Sun’s energy; In his imagination the energy appears from “nothing” in the closed GRAVAC cycle.
This "paper" is a free fantasy only; I don't found any logical reasoning in Goodfellow's writhings.
Were this post by any individual other than Constantin Leshan, I would respond point for point.
Consider Mr. Leshan's posting history: Without any attempt at contacting me and without a rudimentary web search to back up the veracity of his accusation, he posts on several forums that I am a plagiarizer, that I have stolen his work and re-published it as my own. The accusation caused my work to be temporarily removed from this and another forum.
By contacting the moderators and pointing out Mr's Leshan's accusations were nothing more than unfounded slander, and after the moderators did their own research, I was reinstated in both forums, Mr. Leshan was banned (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php) from the other one.
By degrees, he learns that my paper, "Can Gravity be Induced? (http://goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi)" was published 16 years before his, after which he switches tactics and reverts to accusing me of plagiarizing earlier scientists, such as Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650).
Mr. leshan's publications bear no resemblance to my work other than my concepts governing absolute vacuums.
Nowhere do we see Mr. Leshan discussing the behavior of gravitational induction manipulation through plasma-induced absolute vacuum, or non-space.
Nowhere in his papers is the word "plasma" ever mentioned. He seems chiefly involved with abstract notions of teleportation.
Unlike my work, Mr. Leshan offors no predictions of undiscovered natural phenomena, no proposed repeatable laboratory experiment. My work does both (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlhzb51AqGA).
For these reasons I consider Mr. Leshan irresponsible, and his Johnny-come-lately papers of no interest to me. Accusing me of plagiarizing is outright slander, so as far as Mr. Leshan is concerned my only duty is to point out the facts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7NdM61lDjU) and let him wallow in his own pool of self-discontent.
-
Now this is an interesting topic with great answers Spammy link removed
A vacuum is defined as a space devoid of all matter. ... Ultimately, a perfect vacuum isn't possible because quantum theory dictates that energy fluctuations known as 'virtual particles' are constantly popping in and out of existence, even in 'empty' space.
Perfect vacuum is an ideal state of no particles at all. It cannot be achieved in a laboratory, although there may be small volumes which, for a brief moment, happen to have no particles of matter in them.