informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/KEELYNET/GRAVITY/gravity4.asc

1189 lines
47 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

(word processor parameters LM=1, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
GRAVITY4.ASC
this file courteously shared by Joseph Misiolek
October 21, 1990
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CAN GRAVITY be INDUCED?
Observational Evidence and Verifiable Proof for
A Dynamic GRAVAC Sun
by
Stephen Paul Goodfellow
1987
CONTENT:
Introduction Page 2 & 3
A Solar Shell 3
Proof 4 & 5
Elusive Neutrinos 5 & 6
Sunspots 6
Thought Model 6 & 7
Plasma: The Super-Hot Gas 7 & 8
Rudiments of the dynamic GRAVAC Cycle 8 & 9
Helioseismology - The Ring of Truth 9 & 10
Related Natural Phenomena 10
Mr. Science & the Breezy Room 11
Nature's Gravity Wells 11 & 12
Consequences of a GRAVAC Sun 12 & 13
Conclusion 13 - 16
Credits 16
References 17 & 18
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
It has long been believed that gravity is the fundamental cause
of solar radiation.
The presently popular Hydrogen/Fusion Core theory rests on
the assumption that the mutual gravitational attraction of the
Sun's individual atoms override all other acting forces, thereby
causing the Suns mass to contract. This in turn creates the
internal pressures which inaugurate nuclear fusion within the Sun's
core.
This scenario appears to be reasonably logical at a glance, but
when viewed in the sharp light of observational evidence, it
becomes glaringly obvious that the reasoning upon which the
Hydrogen/Fusion Core theory rests is unsound and quite erroneous.
Despite the fact that virtually every major solar observation is at
odds with this popular solar model, physicists continue to subscribe
to it because there does not seem to be a logical alternative.
The wound caused by this dilemma is deep and there for all to see;
the ability to control a sustained fusion reaction continues to
elude researchers, chiefly because of the alchemic approach with
which they attempt to apply their craft.
The reason for this sad state of affairs is simple: Fusion research
is so costly that in their eagerness to magnetically cage the
fusion reaction, scientists forgo the necessary research needed to
understand what goes on in the fusion process.
It is not unlike a blind man attempting to restrain a beast he
cannot see; the blind man builds traps and cages without
understanding the nature of the beast.
Such an attempt must surely end in failure.
PLASMA is the name of the beast that we must strive to understand;
it is a super hot gas of disassociated electrons and protons.
When united within a common magnetic field it is capable of
performing incredible configurations.
Its nature is so different from solid, liquid or gas states, that it
has been designated a state of matter in its own right: a plasma,
the fourth state of matter.
Faced with such an awesome discovery, it would seem reasonable
to assume nothing is as we expected it to be. In the light of this
newly discovered state of matter, we should proceed as if
perceiving the universe for the first time.
NONE of the four known forces in the universe ( the Strong, Weak,
Electromagnetic and gravitational,) nor their interactions with the
known states of matter - may be taken for granted when we know there
is a new player on the field.
When the dynamic state of the plasma was realized, solar physicists
seem to have been reluctant to consider the Sun anew; the
Page 2
intermittently arriving new knowledge of plasma states continue to
be ignored or hastily incorporated into a solar theory already
beset with unreconcilable contradictions, resulting in a hodge-
podge of discontinuous conjectures.
The focal point of this current dilemma lies in the fact that
our science community suffers from an unshakable faith in
the inviolableness of mass/gravity. It is taken for granted
that the gravitational force is dependent on the quantity of
matter present.
This is an unproven conjecture - an act of faith.
Such an attitude has for too many years confined potentially
creative ideas within constrictions which in reality do not exist.
I believe strongly that such unbending dogma does not belong in the
quest for truth, because it has no relation to the objective
universe.
A SOLAR SHELL
Our Sun is empty; its mass is distributed in a shell about an
"Absolute vacuum."
As I shall demonstrate, an Absolute vacuum induces gravity; it is a
rift upon which mass/energy space gravitationally implodes.
This implosion continuously heats the Sun's plasma which in turn
maintains the Sun's Absolute vacuum. I call this the Gravity/Vacuum
Cycle, or the GRAVAC Cycle.
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.
Because of this, the Sun can radiate by the interlocking of an
induced gravitational force that is brought about by the
electromagnetic force.
This comes about because the Sun's plasma is magnetically
polarized, repelling electrons from electrons and protons from
protons. By this process the mass of the Sun is magnetically
repulsed and flies apart creating an Absolute Vacuum.
In turn, this Absolute Vacuum induces gravity. The induced gravity
restrains the Sun's plasma from further outward expansion, and it is
the struggle between the inhibiting induced gravity and the
repulsive magnetic properties of the plasma which cause the solar
shell to radiate.
Page 3
PROOF
For this solar model to work, it requires that absolutely no mass,
nor radiation can travel through an Absolute vacuum.
Therefore, the experimental evidence of this solar model rests
on the following proof:
*It can be demonstrated that neutrinos cannot pass through the Sun*
Small subatomic particles called neutrinos emanate from stars.(2)
To an observer on Earth, each star has its own neutrino fingerprint,
which can be determined by the angle of neutrino approach and the
different neutrino energy levels that individual stars produce.
Because neutrinos are so small and have no charge, most are able to
pass through the Earth without hitting anything.
Astrophysicists believe that a flow of neutrinos would pass through
the Sun without the majority of the neutrinos being stopped by
collisions.(3)
But is this so?
Imagine that you are observing neutrinos emanating from an energetic
star which is about to be eclipsed by the Sun. When the star is
eclipsed, present logic would dictate that neutrinos from the
eclipsed star would pass through the Sun.
I propose that they will not.
It is my prediction that the neutrino flow from the star will stop
at the moment of occultation ( when the star passes behind the sun.)
The reason for this is because the Sun's interior is not a ball of
mass in conventional space, as it is presently believed;(4) on the
contrary, it is an Absolute vacuum through which nothing passes.
Of course, it is not so easy to look for neutrinos passing through
the Sun. An actual experiment would be more complicated, but
could probably be performed along these lines:
Due to the fact that neutrino collisions are scarce, one has to
rely on a record compiled through time in order to get an
accurate determination. You will need a computer and as extensive a
compilation of recorded data of neutrino collisions as possible.
The greater span of time the records cover, the more accurate the
result.
Take the orbit of the Sun ( as seen from Earth,) and break it
down into 365 windows or 'sectors' on the plane of the ecliptic,
one for each day of a year.
The Sun will pass through all 365 sectors in one year, spending 24
hours in each sector.
Page 4
Design a program for the computer so that it will list all the
neutrinos with an angle of approach that comes within the band
divided into 365 sectors.
Eliminate all neutrinos from your data that show energy
levels consistent with those of our Sun. Now compile the sectors
that the Sun was in each day. Compare them to the 364 other sectors
that the Sun was not in.
If present theories on stellar physics are correct, then neutrinos
from stellar and galactic sources should flow unimpaired through the
Sun, and there will be NO DISCERNIBLE QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE
between the Sun sectors and the 364 other sectors that the Sun was
not in. This will not be so.
I predict that the data will exhibit a CONSISTENT DECREASE
of interstellar and intergalactic neutrinos within the solar
sectors.
ELUSIVE NEUTRINOS
This chapter offers observational evidence which led me to
my conclusions.
Problem:
Dr. Raymond Davis of the Brookhaven National Laboratory has been
monitoring the emanation of neutrons from the Sun since 1967, and
he has demonstrated that the flow of these neutrinos amounts to less
than 1/3 of the amount anticipated by the current hydrogen fusion
core theories.(5) Why?
Solution:
The deficiency in the neutrino count may be accounted for as
follows; neutrinos originate from, or near, the Sun's surface.
Since nothing can travel through the Sun's Absolute vacuum
interior, only the neutrinos produced on the side of the Sun facing
us reach the Earth.
Those neutrinos originating from the opposite side of the Sun
cannot penetrate the Sun's absolute vacuum interior and so escape
the Earth based observer.
This is the cause for the lesser neutrino flow observed to be coming
from the Sun.
Problem:
When sunspots occur on the Sun's photosphere, the neutrino count
drops.
Neutrinos have no charge and so cannot be affected by the magnetic
field of sunspots on the Sun's surface.
If neutrinos originate from the Sun's core and travel outwards, then
sunspots on the photospheric surface should have no effect on the
neutrinos.
Page 5
These subatomic particles should pass to the observer unimpeded,
yet the neutrino count is diminished during sunspot
activity.(6) Why?
Solution:
Neutrinos originate near the Sun's photospheric surface.
Within sunspots there is decreased temperature and luminosity,
so there is less likelihood of neutrino production; hence a
decrease of neutrinos during sunspot activity.
SUNSPOTS
Problem:
Sunspots are depressions in the Sun's photospheric surface.(7) If
the interior of a sunspot is closer to the Sun's supposed core, why
does it get cooler and darker and not hotter and brighter in these
areas?
Solution:
The Sun has no core. A sunspot depression is darker because it
is closer to the Sun's Absolute vacuum interior.
THOUGHT MODEL
If the Sun's mass is only a thin shell of matter, how does one
account for its powerful gravitational attraction?
It is time for a thought model.
Imagine the air in front of you. Imagine now that you can apply
a force to expel the air away from a given volume. First, you
may notice that the most efficient shape to maintain a vacuum is a
sphere.
Next, you might observe that the exterior air is attracted to
the vacuum -- an attraction which falls away with the square
of the distance from the source. This attraction is a feature which
exhibits the same characteristics as the force of gravity.
To illustrate this concept, stir a cup of tea or coffee and
carefully pour in some milk. Notice how the interior of the vortex
moves faster than the area further out from the vortex.
A vortex has a low pressure interior and high pressure exterior.
It behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the
Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Second Law of Planetary
Motion (8) - which is a notable characteristic of gravity.
Another way you can observe this attraction at work is to hold
a vacuum cleaner nozzle up to a source of smoke. The attraction of
smoke to the vacuum nozzle will fall off with the square of the
distance from the nozzle, just like gravity.
Let us take our thought model into the real universe.
Page 6
Space - any space - anywhere, contains a measure of mass/energy.
The proof of this is the Background Radiation which pervades our
universe.
Even the 'thinnest' space is a veritable soup of radiation,
virtual particles and even whole atoms passing through any given
volume at phenomenal speeds.(9)
It follows that the laws of pressure that we applied to our thought
model should hold true anywhere in the universe; wherever there is
pressure, a vacuum will attract.
If an Absolute vacuum were possible, what behavior would we expect
of its nature? How would the universe respond to such a phenomenon?
Dictionaries describe a vacuum as: 'A space devoid of matter.' This
definition is no longer a sufficient description of a vacuum, since
it appears that all space in the Universe contains some measure of
mass/energy.
Perhaps a better description would be: 'A Vacuum is a volume
devoid of space.'
Such a volume might be quite different from conventional space.
Since temperature is a result of mass/energy space, it is
reasonable to assume that the temperature of an Absolute Vacuum
must be absolute zero.
If time is a consequence of mass/energy space, then an Absolute
Vacuum must be without time. An observer within such a field would
not be affected by the time frame of exterior space; time would
stand still for that observer while the exterior universe raced on.
A magnetic field is a manifestation of mass/energy but it is
NOT mass/energy in itself. Because of this it seems reasonable to
assume that a magnetic field may exist within an absolute vacuum.
In our thought model we used an imaginary force to maintain
a continuous vacuum. Is there any way of demonstrating the existence
of this force?
PLASMA: THE SUPER-HOT GAS
As I mentioned in the introduction, it was not long ago, that
physics classified matter into only three states: Solid, liquid, and
gas.
It was not realized until recently that a gas heated to a very
high temperature does not obey the law of gasses; it displays a
behavior unique to its own nature and scientists have only recently
begun to probe its secrets.(10)
So different is this state from a regular gas, that it has been
classified as a fourth state of matter: a plasma.(11)
Because all stars consist of this super-hot gas, it is estimated
that over ninety percent of the known universe exists in a
plasma state.(12)
Page 7
Put simply, plasma is a super-hot gas in which electrons
are stripped away from protons, placing particles of like polarity
in the same camp.
Plasmas which are shot through a plasma gun ( a magnetic field,)
and into a vacuum tube display well defined structure.
Unfortunately, because of the speed (120 miles per second,) with
which the plasma makes its way down the vacuum tube, photos reveal
only a glimmering of the complexity that can be contributed to
plasma structure.
However, it is known that the plasma structure can evolve into a
helix-like flow composed of two separate streams, one consisting of
electrons and the other of protons. Furthermore, it has been
observed that the structure as a whole maintains a stable shape
that can best be described as a cross between a doughnut and a
"Slinky" - a toy spring that can 'walk' down a staircase, - turned
in on itself.(13)
It is significant that electrons and protons can organize
into separate camps, because like particles of the same charge
repel one another.
If it is possible to produce a plasma configuration where the
mutual repulsion of particles occur, then it is likely that the
volume left in their wake is an Absolute Vacuum.
It strikes me that it would be a fruitful enterprise to monitor
some future plasma experiments with a sensitive gravimeter to see if
known plasma configurations exhibit inducing gravity
characteristics.
RUDIMENTS OF THE DYNAMIC GRAVAC CYCLE
Although it is highly possible that the following scenario is a
gross oversimplification, I believe it to be an accurate thumbnail
rendition of the Sun's mode of propagation.
I call it the Solar Gravity/Vacuum Cycle, or the Solar GRAVAC cycle:
Imagine a gaseous giant, perhaps a little bigger than Jupiter.
The gravitational sum of its mass causes intense pressure and so
generates atomic fusion at its center.
The fusion reaction splits up protons and electrons which are
forced into like camps, where they repel one another.
However, the plasma can only travel outwards a finite
distance, because it has left an Absolute Vacuum in its wake.
The attraction of mass/energy space towards the Absolute Vacuum
causes a gravitational implosion.
The plasma has nowhere to go. It cannot go further inwards, because
of the repulsive magnetic field; nor can it expand outwards, due to
the gravity holding it back - what's a plasma to do?
Page 8
To answer this question, try the following: Rub your hands
together fast and furious. See how they get hot?
The solar hydrogen shell is under intense pressure at the
vacuum boundary and this causes the Sun's radiation. The
released energy maintains the plasma because electrons are stripped
from protons and so the cycle repeats, thereby maintaining the
radiation of the Sun.
The energy needed to maintain a total vacuum of a given volume
is equal to the energy radiating from its boundary. In the case of
our sun, that is 3.38 X 10 to the 33 ergs/sec.(14)
Let us now review the cycle:
A primordial giant planet - larger than Jupiter - inaugurates
standard gravitational compression in the core of proto-
sun
...Pressure...Nuclear Fusion.....Plasma.....Electrons
form
Camp/Protons
form
Camp....Magnetic repulsion....Induced Gravitational Attraction...
And then back to
' Pressure.'....
This concept is in harmony with the conservation of angular
momentum, in that it accounts for the relatively slow rotation of
our Sun.
Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun, has by far the
greatest portion of angular momentum of the Solar System. If the Sun
contracted from a cloud of hydrogen, one would expect the center to
rotate the fastest, like a spinning ice skater will rotate faster
if she draws her arms into her side.
The GRAVAC scenario suggests that the early proto-Sun's spin was
considerable while it was a dense ball of mass, but as it
inaugurated nuclear fusion and expanded into a thin shell of plasma,
it lost its angular momentum - like the ice skater letting her arms
out and slowing down.(15)
HELIOSEISMOLOGY - THE RING OF TRUTH
A whole new science has recently sprung up called Helioseismology.
It has been observed that the Sun vibrates, rather like a bell.
It is presently believed that solar resonances are propagated
acoustically from the Sun's core.(16) But is this so?
Solar oscillations came as a complete surprise to solar theorists
because one does not usually associate structures that get denser
towards their center as good candidates for effective
oscillators.
Page 9
Hollow structures, such as bells are good oscillators; so too is a
GRAVAC Sun.
We know from studying the powerful magnetic fields that erupt
from sunspot depressions that the Sun is capable of propagating
interior magnetic fields reaching thousands of gauss.(17)
It is this interior field which causes the Sun's magnetically
sensitive outer shell to dance upon the interior magnetic field,
like the oscillations produced by an acoustic speaker.
A blind-folded person would be hard pressed to tell whether he
is being addressed directly or via a speaker.
The same is true for Helioseismology; the observer is blind to the
interior and so the information is interpreted in the light of
present concepts of solar theory.
Helioseismologists have discovered a condition in the Sun's
shallower layers which is at variance with conventional core
models: Through frequency splittings resulting from the Sun's
rotation, it is observed that the rotation actually decreases with
depth. It is hard for any core theory to come to terms with this
lack of angular momentum.(18)
This observation of the Sun suggests an inversion - a sun
turned inside out.
RELATED NATURAL PHENOMENA
Vocal cords produce compressional waves ( high and low pressures )
that travel through the air.
These waves are received by the ear, which converts them into
electro-chemical impulses that are distributed to the relevant
centers of the brain.(19)
The ear also acts as a mechanism of body balance; the semi-
circular canals allow the brain to determine the position of
the head in relation to the gravitational attraction of the Earth.
If pressure and gravity were two separate and unrelated forces,
would one not expect to find two distinctly separate organs to
monitor these phenomena?
A plane flies through the air; its forward motion produces a flow
of air above the wing which creates a standing low pressure
center.(20)
The plane is sucked into the air, away from the Earth's
gravitational field.
Again we observe an interplay between the forces of pressure
and gravity.
When a rocket in space fires its engines, the same interplay of
forces are at work. The rocket places a high pressure behind
itself; in so doing it can be said that a low pressure center
exists in front of the rocket, and the rocket moves in that
direction.
Page 10
MR. SCIENCE & THE BREEZY ROOM
I have constructed a very special room. Its design allows for a
flow of air through the ceiling and floor of the room. It has no
windows and whoever is inside is unable to make any exterior
observations.
As with Einstein's famous accelerating rocket,(21) the observer is
free to draw conclusions from any phenomena that take place in the
room, but he is unaware of the exterior environment.
We now place a fan above the roof of the room which forces
air downwards. Air flows through the room and Mr. Science takes
note.
The room is now placed on a high tower some distance above the
Earth.
Imagine that we now pile an enormous quantity of air above the
tower.
Due to the Earths gravitational attraction which causes the
atmosphere to 'hug' the planet, the air will flow back towards the
Earth and regain its composure.
In doing so, the air will also flow through Mr. Science's room -he
takes note.
When asked about the nature of the two experiments, he tells us that
he believes them to be identical - a flow of air from top to bottom.
He is unaware that the first experiment was the result of pressure;
nor does he know that the second experiment was caused by gravity.
He therefore concludes that the nature of the force that propelled
the air through the room was the same in both instances; to Mr.
Science, pressure_and_gravity_are_identical!
NATURE'S GRAVITY WELLS
Earlier, I mentioned that a vortex in a stirred cup of coffee mimics
the force of gravity. This phenomena is not limited to our cup;
it manifests itself throughout nature's domain.
The low pressure eye of a hurricane is a strangely tranquil place in
which there is little wind and the blue sky can be seen above, while
on all sides the high pressure fury circulates.
Such is the power of the hurricane's eye that the ocean has been
observed to rise several feet higher in this center than the ocean
level surrounding the eye.(22)
This rise in sea level is caused by the low pressure of the
hurricane's eye; the mass of the ocean in the eye is attracted to
the relative vacuum.
As with gravity, the attraction to the eye falls off with the square
of the distance from its center.
Page 11
Spiral galaxies mimic the vortex and their shape leaves us with
some perplexing questions: If galaxies are gravitationally-bound
systems in dynamic equilibrium, they should consist of enough
matter to hold themselves together.
Surprisingly, it would appear that there is not enough matter
present in galaxies to achieve this, thereby giving rise to
the famous 'Missing Mass Problem'.(23)
How does a spiral galaxy obtain the additional gravitational
force when it does not have a corresponding quantity of matter?
Is it possible that its high energy center is an Absolute Vacuum?
If the GRAVAC scenario proves correct, then it is not an
unreasonable speculation that galactic centers of a spiral galaxies
are inducing gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF A GRAVAC SUN
The concept of Absolute Vacuums may go some way to explain Olber's
Paradox, which states that, if space is infinite, why is the sky not
bright with radiative sources?
If space is interrupted with Absolute Vacuums, - and there would be
as many of these as there are stars - then any given area of space
would in effect be 'shielded' from other quadrants.
If the Sun is merely a shell of mass and so has considerably less
mass than hitherto expected, then it cannot afford to merely drift
around living off its limited mass, or it would soon expend its
supply of fuel.
This suggests that there must be some mechanism through which the
Sun replenishes its dwindling fuel supply.
I would suggest that it does this by orbiting the galaxy,
'feeding' off the clouds and globules that pervade the Milky Way.
The Sun's magnetic and gravitational capacity make for an
efficient 'food foraging' mechanism. Both nebulae and Sun travel in
the same direction about the galaxy, like cars traveling in the
same direction on a highway.
Although the Sun is unlikely to collide with the nebulae on a
given trajectory, their mutual gravitational attraction will alter
the Sun's course towards the cloud and the Sun will plunge into
the nebula's hydrogen-rich interior.
It is estimated that the Sun's magnetic influence reaches well
beyond the planets of our solar system. When highly accelerated
particles of the solar wind collide with the gas and dust of space,
electrons and protons are knocked off from one another, thus making
these particles within the Sun's heliosphere magnetically sensitive.
This is somewhat similar to the static cling you get in a drier.
The charged particle follows the magnetic fieldlines to the north or
south pole of the Sun, depending on the polarity of the particle.
Page 12
The Sun's gravitational and magnetic fields are an effective means
of sweeping the galactic plane for matter.
We can see this effect on a smaller scale with our own planet when
we watch the cascade of particles coming to Earth in the form of
the Aurora Borealis.
In the same way the Sun consumes the matter which is necessary for
its continued existence.
Our Sun is presently not in a nebula, and so it is not digesting
much matter at the moment, but if you look at stars in these
nebulae, you will see that they are in a highly energetic state.
I suggest that this is due to the infalling matter which excites
the surface of these suns. Many astronomers believe that the high
energy state of suns in nebulae is due to their youth, and they
point to the Hurtzsprung-Russell diagram as the proof of this.
The Hurtzsprung-Russell diagram plots stars on a chart in order
of their magnitude and temperature, and it is believed that this
tells us something about the evolution of stars.
Can we rely on such a diagram for evolutionary information?
Consider this little story:
An umpire is standing in a crowded stadium. Upon his nose is an
intelligent wart. This wart desires to know the process of
evolution of its host, namely the umpire.
In order to aid itself in this quest, the wart observes the other
people in the stadium. Although the wart cannot see, it is able to
monitor heartbeats and blood pressure of people present.
Armed with this information, the wart constructs a graph upon which
it places the rate of hart beat and blood pressure of all the
people in the stadium.
The wart now mistakenly believes that by comparing people in this
manner, it has acquired a system that displays a sequence of
evolution from youth to old age.
In reality, the graph displays no such information; it
merely describes the momentary state of excitement of the people
in the stadium. The same is true for stars in nebulae. Stars of any
age burn hotter and brighter while feeding.
CONCLUSION
In 1979 I stayed in Chicago with a friend who had been kind enough
to give me lodging while I was organizing an exhibition of my
artwork.
One evening, after a particularly strenuous day I took a long lazy
soak in the bath. By chance I grabbed up an astronomy periodical
which lay atop a stack of magazines which happened to contain
pictures taken by the Voyager spacecraft which had recently passed
through the Jovian system. Those images held me transfixed for
hours, and the tub water was quite cold when I emerged from its
primordial soup.
Page 13
Eight years later and after considerable reflection I still cannot
dissect, much less put into any coherent order of thought, the
process that led to the chrysalis which formed in my mind; I can
only offer its fruits.
These writings are an attempt to put the essence of that vision into
a semblance of order.
In the process of writing this paper I have come to realize that we
live in an outrageously animated universe where nature's ingenuity
is law.
Within this cosm, no cohesive entity is allowed existence unless the
efficiency of its structure has undergone nature's rigorous
trials.
If suns feed through the manipulation of electromagnetism and
gravity, it would seem reasonable to assume that they would do so
in the most efficient way possible.
Consider natures 'invention' of the strawberry flower. This is an
efficient device which allows for pollination and fruit.
Pollination assures reproduction. The fruit which are derived from
the pollinated flower are specifically designed for the survival of
its offspring.
The seeds that are imbedded on the surface of the strawberry pass
unharmed through the animal digestive system. In this way the
offspring are deposited in a rich compost, away from the parent
plant thereby avoiding competition.
I propose that it is the nature of suns exhibit the same measure
of ingenuity.
In space, mass is scarce and suns will have evolved in such a way
as to take the greatest advantage of the mass that is available to
them.
Mass - from which gravity and electromagnetism are derived - are
the tools with which suns seek their fuel. If suns can induce
gravity - make more gravity than the corresponding quantity of
mass allows - then they will have sought a way to do so, for it is
the nature of all life-forms to seek an excellence of efficiency.
The life-urge is a universal and little-understood force; it is
the common thread which holds the microcosm to the macrocosm.
I think it unlikely that this thin sheath we call a biosphere
is unique in its essence; if we only choose to see, then
manifestations of life are to be found on all scales of the cosm.
Seasons repeat, galaxies spin, atoms oscillate.
Mankind is often fooled into thinking of consistency as inanimate;
a cup seems to be a cup from moment to moment, but why should it be
the same cup? Is there any particular reason why we should believe
an atom is the same atom after each oscillation?
Page 14
Can we maintain that a forest is the same forest from season
to season?
Nor is the consistency of an ocean's color a result of the
inanimate; on the contrary, its color is a celebration of life.
The 'unchanging' appearance of an oceans color and hue is net
result of the countless micro-organisms in the process of living
within its water.
Why is it so hard for us as humans to see and comprehend a
living universe?
In our shells of being, we are trapped in our own time notion and
it is only through insight, patience and study that the
actions of smaller and larger cosms come to life for us.
Humankind must resist falling prey to the vanity of uniqueness.
The sum of our species has shown no more self determination than
any other species; we mindlessly extract trapped carbon in the
form of coal and oil and eject it into the Earths atmosphere.
Is there purpose in this?
How would we know if we refuse to even consider the Earth as a
living entity of which we are an interacting part? We hurtle along,
blinded by our lack of humility; if we refuse look about us in the
midst of a living universe, how will we know oblivion even if we
were rushing directly towards it?
I suspect that the vast majority of copies of this paper will
be thrown away without even being read. Some will be casually
browsed through before they are discarded. However, through the
sheer force of their numbers it is quite possible that a few -
such as you dear reader - will actually have read the paper in
its entirety.
I fancy someday, someone will be tempted to perform the
occultation experiment which I have described earlier in this
paper. I suspect that this will happen sooner or later anyway,
and If my vision is false, and neutrinos pass through the Sun
unimpeded, then surely I have hurt or offended no one.
However, if it holds the seeds of truth - that gravity is no slave
to matter - where lie the limits of humankind's destiny, if we
learn to understand and control the nature of its force?
It is quite possible that no one will remember my prediction
when verified, but that is of no consequence. The origin of an idea
is of no importance; time bleaches the pages of history,
names are eventually forgotten in the haze of time and no one is
remembered for very long.
I suspect Nietzsche is wrong when he writes that the only things
remembered are written in blood and stone. Overall, humankinds
collective memory is quite short and so it is only the concepts
Page 15
that become indispensable and fundamental to the survival of our
species that ever remain through the rise and fall of cultures
and in my conceit, it is here that I stake my claim.
Man has no time but that river of dreams upon which he casts
himself adrift.
If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to me
at:
Stephen Goodfellow,
146 Farrand Park,
Highland Park, MI 48023
(313) 883-4827
CREDITS
I would like to thank the following people who have taken the time
to correspond or talk with me.
Walter Kauppila, Physics Professor at Wayne State University. Dr.
Favro, W.S.U. Professor Chen, Professor of astronomy, W.S.U.
Professor Teske, Physics, University of Michigan.
Jim Thele, Electrical Technician at G.M. Greg Menovick,
Mathematics, W.S.U. Professor Wadehra, University of Michigan.
Professor Cowley, Physics & Astronomy, Wayne State University.
Greenberg, Editor of Kronos Journal. Leslie Leifer, Chemistry,
Mich. Tech, Univ. Special thanks to Dr. Raymond Davis of
Brookhaven National Laboratory for his research.
Thanks to my Brother, Justin Meilgaard, for helping me with
this pamphlet.
I also thank Bill Haus, Allan Franklin, Ralph Franklin, Janis
Lewitt, Dennis Lamberis, Jackie Jablonski, for teaching me how to
think.
Special thanks to Lowell Boileau and Marvin Reili to whom I owe the
existence of this paper, and who have taken the brunt of my 'off
the wall' ideas with immeasurable patience.
Page 16
REFERENCES
(1) "Gravity" by George Gamow, Doubleday Publishers 1962, p.138
(2) "Realm of the Universe" by George O. Abell, Saunders Pub.
1980. pp.285-86
(3) The concept of neutrinos passing through the Sun is confirmed
by conversation with Professor Wadehra from University of
Michigan, dept. of Astrophysics (1/21/85) Prof. Wadehra also
agreed that it is hypothetically possible to determine:
(a) The source of a neutrino; the angle of neutrino approach
can be determined by collision, and
(b) A neutrino's energy level can be determined. (Hence a
solar neutrino cannot be mistaken for a neutrino of a
higher energy even though it originates from a star which
is occulted by the Sun.)
(4) See "Sun," Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980, vol.17, p.178.
(5) Encyclopedia Britannica, "Science and the Future" Year
Book, 1983; 'The phantom Neutrino' by James S. Trefil, p.224
(6) News Notes, Sky & Telescope December issue, 1984 p.506
(7) "Sunspots" 1979 by R. J. Bray and R. E. Loughhead.
Dover Publications,p.4.
(8) "Sensitive Chaos" by Theodor Schwenk, Schocken Books, New York,
1978 ; pp.44-45.
(9) "The Key to the Universe" 1978 by Nigel Calder. Penguin Pub.
New York, p.26.
"Astrophysical Quantities" 1973 by C.W. Allen, 3rd ed.
The Athlone Press, Univ. of London; p.265.
(10) "Solid Clues" 1985 by Gerald Feinburg, Simon & Schuster pub.
p.23
(11) "The ABC of Plasma" Fusion Magazine, by Riemannian, Nov. 1978
(12) "Dictionary of Science" 1986 Barnhart Books, p.502
(13) "The ABC of Plasma" Fusion Magazine, by Riemannian,
Nov.1978p.42.
(14) "Realm of the Universe"1980 by George O. Abell, Saunders
Publication p.222
(15) "Design of the Universe" by Fritz Kahn, Klein Publishers,
New York 1954 pp. 207-208.
(16) Scientific American, Sept. 1985 "Helioseismology" (Article,)
John W. Leibacher, Robers W. Noyes, Juri Toomre, Roger K.
Ulrich; p.48-57.
Page 17
(17) "A New Sun" by John A. Eddy, NASA 1979 (SP-402); p.27.
(18) See (15); p.56.
(19) Encyclopedia Britannica 1980 vol.5, 'Ear,'pp. 1120-1131.
Also: "The Body" 1985 Anthony Smith, Pelican Books, 'The Ear.'
(20) Encyclopedia Britannica 1980 vol.1, 'Heavier-than-air
craft,' pp.372-383
(21) "Gravity" by George Gamow, Doubleday Publishers 1962,
p.118
(22) Encyclopedia Britannica 1980 vol. 9, 'Hurricanes and
Typhoons' p.63
Scientific American 1964 vol.211, 'Experiments in
Hurricane Modification' by R.H. Simpson and Joanne S. Malkus,
pp.27-37
(23) "Principles of Cosmology" 1978, by Michael Berry, Cambridge
Univ. Press, London; p.17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such
topics as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or
send to the Vangard Sciences address as previously listed.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 18
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink