0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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.pdfhttp://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leshan_Leshan.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdfhttp://www.gravity.uwa.edu.au/amaldi/papers/Leshan.pdf
Quote from: dentstudent on 10/07/2007 08:51:26Here 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.
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' 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
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.
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
It is another Empty Sun theory (in Russian): http://physics.nad.ru/newboard/themes/14235.html
Flowing Space into sinks by Henry H. Lindner http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8041/Writings/Space/Physics.htmThere 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.
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.
There is a review of Goodfellow's paper "Can Gravity be Induced".First I invite you to read Goodfellow's paper and "review". 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.