textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/gravac.xml

<xml><p>
CAN GRAVITY be INDUCED?


<ent type='ORG'>Observational Evidence and Verifiable</ent> Proof for


A Dynamic <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>


by

<ent type='PERSON'>Stephen Paul Goodfellow</ent>


1987



CONTENT:


Introduction Page 3

A Solar Shell 4

Proof 4

Elusive <ent type='ORG'>Neutrinos</ent> 5

<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>spots 6

Thought Model 6

Plasma: The Super-Hot Gas 7

Rudiments of the dynamic <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> Cycle 8

<ent type='ORG'>Helioseismology</ent> - <ent type='ORG'>The Ring</ent> of Truth 9

Related Natural Phenomena 9

Mr. Science &amp; the Breezy Room 10

Nature's Gravity Wells 10

Consequences of a <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 11

Conclusion 12

Credits 14

References 15


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
<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>s 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.
<ent type='ORG'>PLASMA</ent> 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. <ent type='ORG'>NONE</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> anew; the
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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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.


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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>*

Small subatomic particles called neutrinos emanate from stars.(2) To
an observer on <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, 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 <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> without hitting anything. <ent type='ORG'>Astrophysicists</ent>
believe that a flow of neutrinos would pass through the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>. When the star is
eclipsed, present logic would dictate that neutrinos from the eclipsed
star would pass through the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.
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
<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>. 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> ( as seen from <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>,) and break it down
into 365 windows or '<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors' on the plane of the ecliptic, one for
each day of a year. The <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> will pass through all 365 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors in one
year, spending 24 hours in each <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tor.
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 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors.
<ent type='ORG'>Eliminate</ent> all neutrinos from your data that show energy levels
consistent with those of our <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.
Now compile the <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors that the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> was in each day. Compare them to
the 364 other <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors that the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> was not in.

If present theories on stellar physics are correct, then neutrinos
from stellar and galactic sources should flow unimpaired through the
<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>, and there will be NO DISCERNIBLE QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE between
the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors and the 364 other <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors that the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>tors.


ELUSIVE NEUTRINOS

This chapter offers observational evidence which led me to my
conclusions.

Problem:
Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Raymond Davis</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the Brookhaven National Laboratory</ent> has been
monitoring the emanation of neutrons from the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> facing us reach the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>.
Those neutrinos originating from the opposite side of the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> cannot
penetrate the Sun's absolute vacuum interior and so escape the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>
based observer.
This is the cause for the lesser neutrino flow observed to be coming
from the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.

Problem:
When sunspots occur on the Sun's photosphere, the neutrino count
drops.
<ent type='ORG'>Neutrinos</ent> 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. These subatomic particles should pass to the observer
unimpeded, yet the neutrino count is diminished during sunspot
activity.(6) Why?

Solution:
<ent type='ORG'>Neutrinos</ent> 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.



<ent type='ORG'>SUNSPOTS</ent>

Problem:
<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>spots 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>,
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.
<ent type='ORG'>Space</ent> - 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 <ent type='ORG'>Universe</ent> 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?


<ent type='ORG'>PLASMA</ent>: 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 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>rets.(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)
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.
<ent type='ORG'>Plasmas</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond,) 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 <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> cycle:
Imagine a gaseous giant, perhaps a little bigger than <ent type='LOC'>Jupiter</ent>. 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?
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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.
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/<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>.(14)
Let us now review the cycle:
A primordial giant planet - larger than <ent type='LOC'>Jupiter</ent> - inaugurates standard
gravitational compression in 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.
<ent type='LOC'>Jupiter</ent>, the fifth planet from the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>, has by far the greatest
portion of angular momentum of the Solar System. If the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> 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)


<ent type='ORG'>HELIOSEISMOLOGY</ent> - THE RING OF TRUTH

A whole new science has recently sprung up called <ent type='ORG'>Helioseismology</ent>. It
has been observed that the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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.
<ent type='ORG'>Hollow</ent> structures, such as bells are good oscillators; so too is a
<ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.
We know from studying the powerful magnetic fields that erupt from
sunspot depressions that the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Helioseismology</ent>; the observer is blind to the
interior and so the information is interpreted in the light of present
concepts of solar theory.
<ent type='ORG'>Helioseismologists</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>.
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.


MR. SCIENCE &amp; 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. <ent type='ORG'>Air</ent> flows through the room and Mr. Science takes note.
The room is now placed on a high tower some distance above the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>.
Imagine that we now pile an enormous quantity of air above the tower.
Due to the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>s gravitational attraction which causes the atmosphere
'hug' the planet, the air will flow back towards the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>ond 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.

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 <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>GRAVAC</ent> SUN

The concept of Absolute Vacuums may go some way to explain Olbers
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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> travel in the same direction
about the galaxy, like cars traveling in the same direction on a
highway.
Although the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>,
depending on the polarity of the particle. 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 <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> in the form of the
Aurora Borealis.
In the same way the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> consumes the matter which is necessary for its
continued existence.
Our <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 c<ent type='ORG'>hart</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>hart</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>Jovian</ent>
system. Those images held me transfixed for hours, and the tub water
was quite cold when I emerged from its primordial soup.
Eight years later and after considerable reflection I still cannot
dis<ent type='ORG'>sec</ent>t, 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 <ent type='ORG'>cosm</ent>, 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 micro<ent type='ORG'>cosm</ent> to the macro<ent type='ORG'>cosm</ent>.
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 <ent type='ORG'>cosm</ent>. 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?
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 <ent type='ORG'>cosm</ent>s 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 <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>s atmosphere.
Is there purpose in this?
How would we know if we refuse to even consider the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Nietzsche</ent> 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 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:
<ent type='PERSON'>Stephen Goodfellow</ent>, 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. <ent type='PERSON'>Walter Kauppila</ent>, Physics Professor at
<ent type='PERSON'>Wayne</ent> State University. Dr. Favro, W.S.U. Professor <ent type='PERSON'>Chen</ent>, Professor of
astronomy, W.S.U. Professor <ent type='PERSON'>Teske</ent>, Physics, University of Michigan.
<ent type='PERSON'>Jim Thele</ent>, Electrical Technician at G.M. <ent type='PERSON'>Greg Menovick</ent>, Mathematics,
W.S.U. Professor <ent type='ORG'>Wadehra</ent>, University of Michigan. Professor Cowley,
Physics &amp; Astronomy, <ent type='PERSON'>Wayne</ent> State University. Greenberg, Editor of
<ent type='ORG'>Kronos Journal</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Leslie Leifer</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Chemistry</ent>, Mich. Tech, Univ. Special
thanks to Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Raymond Davis</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>Brookhaven National Laboratory</ent> for his
research.
Thanks to my Brother, <ent type='PERSON'>Justin Meilgaard</ent>, for helping me with this
pamphlet. I also thank <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Haus</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Allan Franklin</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ralph Franklin</ent>,
<ent type='PERSON'>Janis Lewitt</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Lamberis</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Jackie Jablonski</ent>, for teaching me how
to think. Special thanks to <ent type='PERSON'>Lowell Boileau</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Marvin Reili</ent> to whom I
owe the existence of this paper, and who have taken the brunt of my
'off the wall' ideas with immeasurable patience.

REFERENCES

(1) "Gravity" by <ent type='PERSON'>George Gamow</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Doubleday Publishers</ent> 1962, p.138
(2) "Realm of the <ent type='ORG'>Universe</ent>" by George O. Abell, <ent type='PERSON'>Saunders</ent> Pub. 1980.
pp.285-86
(3) The concept of neutrinos passing through the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> is confirmed by
conversation with Professor <ent type='ORG'>Wadehra</ent> from University of Michigan,
dept. of <ent type='ORG'>Astrophysics</ent> (1/21/85) Prof. <ent type='ORG'>Wadehra</ent> 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 <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>.)
(4) See "<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>," 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 &amp; Telescope December issue, 1984 p.506
(7) "<ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>spots" 1979 by R. J. Bray and R. E. Loughhead. Dover
Publications,p.4.
(8) "Sensitive Chaos" by <ent type='PERSON'>Theodor Schwenk</ent>, Schocken Books, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>,
1978 ; pp.44-45.
(9) "The Key to the <ent type='ORG'>Universe</ent>" 1978 by <ent type='PERSON'>Nigel Calder</ent>. Penguin Pub. New
York, p.26.
"Astrophysical Quantities" 1973 by C.W. Allen, 3rd ed. The
Athlone Press, Univ. of <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>; p.265.
(10) "Solid Clues" 1985 by <ent type='PERSON'>Gerald Feinburg</ent>, Simon &amp; Schuster pub. p.23
(11) "The <ent type='ORG'>ABC</ent> of Plasma" Fusion Magazine, by <ent type='NORP'>Riemannian</ent>, Nov. 1978
(12) "Dictionary of Science" 1986 Barn<ent type='ORG'>hart</ent> Books, p.502
(13) "The <ent type='ORG'>ABC</ent> of Plasma" Fusion Magazine, by <ent type='NORP'>Riemannian</ent>, Nov.1978p.42.
(14) "Realm of the <ent type='ORG'>Universe</ent>"1980 by George O. Abell, <ent type='PERSON'>Saunders</ent>
Publication p.222
(15) "Design of the <ent type='ORG'>Universe</ent>" by <ent type='PERSON'>Fritz Kahn</ent>, Klein Publishers, New
York 1954 pp. 207-208.
(16) <ent type='ORG'>Scientific American</ent>, Sept. 1985 "<ent type='ORG'>Helioseismology</ent>" (Article,) <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
W. Leibacher, Robers W. <ent type='ORG'>Noyes</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Juri Toomre</ent>, Roger K. Ulrich;
p.48-57.
(17) "A New <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>" by <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> A. <ent type='ORG'>Eddy</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>NASA</ent> 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, <ent type='ORG'>Pelican Books</ent>, 'The Ear.'
(20) Encyclopedia Britannica 1980 vol.1, 'Heavier-than-air craft,'
pp.372-383
(21) "Gravity" by <ent type='PERSON'>George Gamow</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Doubleday Publishers</ent> 1962, p.118
(22) Encyclopedia Britannica 1980 vol. 9, 'Hurricanes and Typhoons'
p.63
<ent type='ORG'>Scientific American</ent> 1964 vol.211, 'Experiments in Hurricane
Modification' by R.H. Simpson and Joanne S. <ent type='ORG'>Malkus</ent>, pp.27-37
(23) "Principles of Cosmology" 1978, by <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Berry</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Cambridge Univ</ent>. Press, <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>; p.17.</p></xml>