latest stuff Videos
Latest Stuff video compilations
Latest stuff videos :: Social Bookmarking 
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css :: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
Latest comments made on this video:
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 26 Jun 09, 21:19:52
Thank you for the kind words, although I thought your comment about Lettucemonster was harsh. What I am proposing is a very unconventional idea and many intelligent individuals will find it hard to accept the outlandish notion that gravity is being induced. It flies in the face of conventional concepts of mass and gravity. Can't blame folks who think it's too outlandish to be correct. To answer your question, yes, my idea. Neutrinos come from the solar shell, not core, that will be my proof.
By: bedofkelp. on 25 Jun 09, 03:38:22
Mind-blowing video! Did you come up with this idea yourself? Lettucemonster, you obviously need to seriously brush up on your science, instead of getting it fed to you from a TV. Stop bothering individuals of greater stature than yourself, who are too kind to tell you to get lost.
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 23 Jun 09, 03:55:42
Lettucemonster, you say 'c' is the speed of light in a vacuum - but space has no vacuum. Search 'Vacuum" in Wikipedia: "Perfect vacuum is an ideal state that cannot be obtained in a laboratory, nor can it be found or obtained anywhere else in the universe, apart from possibly the singularity of a black hole." If there is no vacuum, how do you know that light will propogate through it?
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 23 Jun 09, 03:48:05
I have no doubt that you are correct...but I DO have a prediction for my admittedly outrageous idea which I have every likelihood of seeing dashed or come to fruition, possibly within my lifetime: Solar neutrino data will eventually show that neutrinos come from the shell, not the core of the Sun.
By: lettucemonster. on 22 Jun 09, 15:52:30
No, 'c' is the speed of light in a vacuum. Also, dimensional analysis is the absolute first hurdle an equation must pass through to have any grain of truth in it. Your version of the famous equation does not pass it.
By: MissDragonFyre. on 20 Jun 09, 06:02:25
Yes.
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 20 Jun 09, 00:55:18
Aye, love them Fibonacci sequences! Are you referring to the hexagon deliniated pole on Saturn? Nature's manifestations always seem to be more astonishing than we can ever predict or imagine.
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 20 Jun 09, 00:47:35
That you use the word "hollow" to describe the volume below the sun's photosphere tells me that I have lost you somewhere along the way. Depressions in the photosphere ought to be brighter, not darker. E=Mc2v - where "v" denotes the speed of light in a vacuum. As to dimensional analysis - I know next to nothing about that.
By: lettucemonster. on 19 Jun 09, 12:57:08
Absolute rubbish. Sunspots are not holes into a hollow centre of the Sun - they are physical objects which emit considerable radiation of their own. They only appear dark because they are cooler than the surrounding solar matter. You also have Einstein's equation wrong; the wacky re-arrangement you do at the end doesn't even pass the test of dimensional analysis; when you multiply a mass by a squared velocity you do NOT get another velocity out at the end.
By: MissDragonFyre. on 18 Jun 09, 05:45:30
Speaking of spirals reminds me of Fibonacci sequences and Saturn also has an interesting vortex--- anyway interesting theory.
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 11 Jun 09, 00:00:27
Hi barkerj88, Cream churning, suddenly becoming butter - I suspect the rip in the space fabric happens abruptly like that, but instead it is the plasma dance of dissociated electrons and protons within a united magnetic field. These move in like camps, protons with protons and electrons with electrons, which and repel one another. Vacuums are presently created with ion pumps, shooting individual electrons through the chamber in an attempt to remove errant particles. Also, Google "E=MC2V"
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 10 Jun 09, 23:38:39
Dear fjtillery1, Hi, - My understanding of subatomic particles is pretty rough. I understand that near an absolute vacuum particles are supposed to spontaneously spring into existence, though I don't know if it has been confirmed. Keep in mind that the concept here is merely a heuristic sketch, and the questions you are asking have probably never been expressed before within this context, which makes you a pioneer :-) I'm sorry I can't be more specific - it's presently beyond my reach.
By: barkerj88. on 10 Jun 09, 21:15:34
hi there, i was just wondering how the magnetic repulsion causes the absolute vacuum at the centre of the star. Also i was wondering exactly how you defined the equation E=MC2^V as i have never seen this equation in this form. Thanks
By: fjtilley1. on 10 Jun 09, 21:10:46
As I understand it forces require a mediating particle in order to transmit information so surrounding particles can react accordingly, where are the bosons coming from to mediate this pressure difference so that space 'knows' that this vacuum is zero pressure?
By: StephenPGoodfellow. on 10 Jun 09, 12:40:10
Hi MrNeglect, The pulling force on the particles attracted to the Sun's shell doesn't stop, the particle just isn't allowed to draw inwards any further. Instead the particle writhes on the magnetic boundary under intense friction and pressure, forcing it to radiate. Puncture. Hard to do, but a substantial rupture of the Sun's shell might possibly destabilize the magnetically sustained absolute vacuum interior and implode the Sun, causing a nova. Don't try this at home! :-)
By: mrneglect. on 09 Jun 09, 10:11:13
I think my main gripe is that if this shell successfully manages to ward off the incoming particles then the pulling force would stop. If you have a puncture in the wall of a space shuttle, air rapidly begins to flow in that direction, from all parts of the vessel's interior. But if you repair the hole, a pressure wave is reflected and all that rushing air stops. Why should this not be the case with the sun?
By: intricatic. on 07 Jun 09, 05:12:31
I would consider string theory and much of quantum mechanics to be far more insane and strange than this thesis. This one is actually consistent internally, and externally.
By: zappedpyramid. on 01 Jun 09, 17:57:39
"...If the vacuum model is correct, we should be observing a limb effect, neutrinos coming from the edge rather than from the center of the Sun. Nothing, including neutrinos can pass through the volume of an absolute vacuum. "
By: zappedpyramid. on 01 Jun 09, 17:55:42
The author feels that his heueristic suggestion, although it conforms to the observations at hand, is so inflammatory that the scientfic community would dismiss it out-of-hand. However, it you click on his FAQ on the upper right hand of this page, you will see he does have a prediction for his musings, which is more than you can say for a lot of papers in peer reviewed journals...
By: mrjcleaver. on 01 Jun 09, 13:26:21
Physics friend of mine commented: "Whatever it is he is trying to prove he should publish (in a peer reviewed journal)..."
By: mrjcleaver. on 01 Jun 09, 13:21:39
Interesting concept... I'd have to ask someone who had a good grasp of physics... forwarding...
By: MeredithWaters. on 02 May 09, 20:31:59
Vacuum: that which is mysteriously between protons and electrons...something to think about...
By: soupdragon42. on 18 Apr 09, 19:03:44
It is certainly true that the inner layers of the sun are cooler that the outer layers, and mainstream science is at a total loss to explain this.
By: soupdragon42. on 18 Apr 09, 19:01:34
An interesting presentation. I will check out the web site.
By: Deathpod4. on 11 Apr 09, 13:07:45
In terms of the plasma globe analogy, I would be interested to know if increasing the current (or some other factor) causes the streams to converge into one dominant filament. I honestly don't know if it would.