Hi,

I did a pretty through search of the forum and am fairly sure this solar model has not been proposed.

Recommend a review of the video "An Empty Sun - Is Gravity being Induced?"
You can find it on YouTube, it's ten minutes long.

Abstract:
A proposal suggesting that the Sun is a shell of sustained charged plasma encasing a non-space/absolute vacuum sphere that induces gravity.

Here is the transcript:

Hello, my name is Stephen Goodfellow. If you will bear with me for the next ten minutes, I will show you something that may completely change the way you perceive the Universe. In this short video I shall illustrate my outrageous assertion that the sun is a shell of hydrogen with an absolute vacuum interior - a vacuum that induces gravity.
Furthermore, I shall support this assertion with empirical observations that I have collected over the past 30 years. Are you ready? Good. Let's begin.

Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center.
The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Weather it be clotted cream swishing around a low pressure center, or a planet orbiting our Sun, their behavior is essentially identical.
Now - this is the interesting part - The depression in the center of the coffee is a relative absence of matter producing an effect identical to that of planets and Sun mutually attracted to one another.
In other words, one event is brought about by a concentration of mass, the other by an absence thereof.

This induced gravitational attraction takes on many related manifestations in nature, some of which we are likely to come across, whether it be in the form of water going down a drain.
...or a whirlpool in a river...
On a larger scale, hurricanes...
...and tornadoes...
Although the spiral galaxies means of propagation remain a mystery, one cannot but be struck by the similarities between these and their more earthly counterparts.

The inner ear
Consider the organ with which we hear, the eardrum. Sounds that the inner ear receives and decodes are compressional waves - that is, areas in which there is more air, between troughs of less air - or high and low pressures.

Through vibration, the ear translates these waves into electrochemical impulses which are sent to the brain - and that should be all there is to it - except that the ear actually performs another seemingly unrelated function. The ear has two semi-circular canals which inform the brain as to your position in relation to our planet's gravitational field.

Now that is really, really interesting; one organ performing two seemingly different tasks. One part of the eardrum works with pressure, the other, with gravity.

Now, if pressure and gravity were two fundamentally distinct and separate forces, should we not expect to find two distinctly separate organs to discern these two forces? After all, this is the usual order of things. The heart, uniquely suited to pump blood fulfills it's specialized role. Lungs specifically supply oxygen to the body.
So why should the inner ear neatly perform two functions? Could it be that pressure and gravity are manifestations of the same force?

Vacuum
Dictionaries define a vacuum as "A space absolutely devoid of matter." And though it seems a reasonable statement, it is not correct.
A better definition would be, vacuum is "A volume with no space in it."
Wherever we look in the universe, absolute vacuums" are nowhere to be observed.
Now that is pretty astonishing. Because, for the longest time space was thought to be an absolute vacuum.
When Einstein produced his work on Relativity in the early part of the 20th century, he had no way of knowing that space was not a vacuum: E=MC2v (Where 'v" is the velocity of light in a vacuum.

We know that light travels upon the fabric of space, but no observation has ever been made of light propagating through an absolute vacuum.

Even in the thinnest intergalactic space, any given cubic centimeter is awash in activity. Virtual particles spontaneously come into existence, then blink out again. Radiation permeates this thinnest of space. Whole atoms, unhindered, reach such high velocities that a plethora of them pass through a given cubic centimeter at any given time.
Space is a fabric of mass/energy and the laws of pressure are just as relevant in outer space as within the boundaries of our own atmosphere; it's just on a much, much larger scale.

Let us now perform a simple thought model. Let's imagine that I, by calling upon some mysterious power, can force the mass/energy out of a of given volume.
The first thing you would notice is that it would form into a sphere because of the pressure of the air pushing in on it equally from all sides. It would be completely dark. Within this volume, there is no time nor temperature.
Furthermore, you could not directly look at this absence of mass/energy is because the exterior atmosphere would fall in on it with such intense pressure that it would glow.
...And that attraction, that crushing in of the exterior air would be indistinguishable from gravity.

Could such objects really exist in reality?

Together with solid, liquid and gas, plasma is the 4th state of matter. Our Sun is a large charged plasma ball. Because the sun is rotating, this creates a dynamo effect which allows the plasma to exist as a single unified magnetic entity.
How powerful is this effect? If you look at the shifting structures in the suns outer layers, you see quite plainly that they are not visibly effected by the crushing gravitational attraction of the Sun. This is because the gravitational force is some 10 x 33rd times weaker than the magnetic force (that's a number with 30 zeros behind it.) In other words, it only takes a fraction of the plasma's magnetic potential to overcome the gravitational influence of the Sun.

Here are three persuasive observations that lead me to believe that the sun propagates in the manner I shall shortly illustrate.

1. Sunspots.
Sunspots are dark depressions in the Sun's photosphere. The reason they are dark is because we are looking in towards the absolute vacuum of the Sun through this temporary thinning of solar hydrogen.

2. Helioseismology. Scientists have discovered that the sun rings, much like a bell. These oscillations are much easier to propagate through a thin plasma shell, rather than through an increasingly dense object. One might compare a bowling ball and a bell; the bell is much more likely to successfully oscillate.

3. Angular momentum.
If the solar system formed by accretion of interstellar matter, then our Sun ought to be rotating much, much faster than it is. Like a spinning ice skater accelerating by drawing in their arms, the Sun - in the center of the solar system - ought to have the lions share of angular momentum, but when we look at the system, we find that Jupiter, our largest outer gas-giant planet, has the majority of the angular momentum. Jupiter rotates once every 10 hours, whereas the Sun rotates only every 30 days.

Picture a proto-star, somewhat heavier than Jupiter. The dense pressure in the interior inaugurates nuclear fusion.
A charged plasma is created.
The dynamo effect created by the rapidly rotating proto-Sun supplies a unifying magnetic field for the plasma.
Stripped Electrons and protons form into camps of like particles.
Magnetic repulsion occurs. (Outward flow of plasma .)
The proto sun rapidly expands, and in doing so, like a spinning skater putting out their arms, the rotation slows.
This inflation of the Sun leaves non space in it's wake; induced gravitational attraction is brought about, restraining the further outward flow of matter.
The opposing forces of magnetic repulsion and Induced gravitational attraction brings the solar shell into equilibrium.
The Sun's shell of matter is heated under pressure from magnetic plasma repulsion and induced gravitational attraction.
And now the the process repeats, The sun is in it's sustaining cycle. The dense pressure of the suns matter crushing in on the non-space heats it, sustaining nuclear fusion, which in turn sustains the plasma. The fuel is hydrogen.

--- The following is the FAQ page:

Given the mathematics involved in calculating the mass of a heavenly body, one would assume, or deduce, that the mass of a Sun that is hollow would be much less than a Sun that is not hollow. How do you explain this?

The Sun's interior non-space is generating gravity.
By hollow, I assume you mean a relatively empty space? The video suggests that under these conditions the nature of a vacuum is taken to its extreme and becomes a rip in the fabric of space, a condition that mass/energy/space reacts to as if it were a gravitational phenomenon - which is precisely what it is.

Return to top

What about the Earth's magnetic field? Is our Earth hollow?

You don't need to call upon an accelerated plasma to generate a magnetic field, but that said, I believe it is entirely possible that the earth mimics the Sun, but in miniature.
Although on a much smaller scale than the Sun, one can deduce that the Earth has a hot interior, and the conditions are present for the Earth's internal mass to be in a plasma condition. The Earth rotates, and charged plasma is susceptible to here is a dynamo effect.

It might explain this postulated behavior, for which the the author Neil Adams has an entirely different causal explanation. Also, it could go some way to help a string of puzzled engineers who can't understand how dinosaurs could function in our heavy gravity.
However intriguing, I have only explored a little in this direction. Perhaps there is less easily discernible empirical evidence and I cannot think of anything predictive. It might be it hard to prove one way or the other - in which case may become a subject for endless debate.

Return to top


If the Sun is hollow and has only a skin of Hydrogen why hasn't that skin burn off? Where does all the fuel come from?

Two mechanisms for hydrogen replenishment occur to me.
1. Our Sun is enveloped in a huge magneto sheath called the heliosphere which extends far beyond the outer planets. This sheath might be considered a digestive system for the Sun. As the Sun sweeps around the Milky Way galaxy , which it orbits once every 250,000,000 years, the magneto bow wave of the solar magnetosphere slams into particles of dust and knocks off lose electrons. This gives the particle a static charge, which makes it sensitive to the Sun's magnetic field lines. The particle follows the field lines into the north and south pole of the Sun. Like a whale hunting krill, the Sun sweeps up considerable quantities of these. The Earth's Auroras are miniature versions of what the Sun does.

The Sun must occasionally collide with the dense gas and dust globules that litter the Milky Way. At times like that, the Sun must be in a feeding frenzy mode. Lucky for Earth, the majority of the incoming material reaches the Sun without intersecting the planetary plane. Even so, those impact craters that pockmark our planets and moons have to come from somewhere.


2. Then there is the "Something for Nothing " postulation which I believe now has empirical proofs. In this scenario the mere act of the Sun sustaining an absolute vacuum is a free lunch. As attractive as this explanation is, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned or have lived in the ghetto too long. There's got to be a catch.

Return to top



How do you define "Space" in the definition of a volume?

Space and volume are two different things. Space is of this Universe, a volume - in the sense that I mean it - describes the location (out of space) in which non-space, or a vacuum can exist.

Return to top

what would be the outcomes of your theory with regard to black holes which are alleged to be at the center of every galaxy?

I have only a rough opinion about this. There is so little observational data that one can only extrapolate, but here is my train of logic:
Basically, it depends on the accretion disk that surrounds the heavy pre-black hole object. Since the charged plasma accretion disk is very hot and whirling very fast. The magnetic coherency of that structure must be very powerful indeed. As I mentioned in the video, the magnetic consideration has the potential to be 10 x 33 powers stronger than the gravitational force.
It's a little bit like a mouse tethered to an elephant: it's NOT what the heavy gravitational object in the center wants to do, it's the charged plasma that gets to be the "decider". With the data available to me, that's as much as I can figure out at present.

Return to top



Your idea goes against the established notion as to how the sun works. How can you defend that?

I am more than aware of the hydrogen/fusion core model and its proponents.
It is the human condition that most adherents might cling to the hydrogen/fusion core model, because it is hard to conceive of any other means of solar propagation.

Mass and gravity have always been considered inseparable, and I am cognizant of the fact that an empty sun might be viewed as a rather outlandish idea.
However, those who teach and present the hydrogen/fusion core model as a unquestioned fact ought to be ashamed of themselves.
It is sloppy and unscientific.
Such curriculum ought to be based on the observations at hand rather than drawing erroneous conclusions.
I think of these as neo-Ptolomeans - science priests, hopelessly stuck in their own notions of solar propagation and the facts be damned. The hydrogen/fusion core model has cleared no observational hurdles, no predicted observations.
As a consequence of such disastrous assumptions, fusion experiments based on these have ended in failure. This has been going on for the past 50 years and has yielded no fruit, because the science is fundamentally flawed.
It is consuming huge resources, and it is time for this nonsense to stop.

I'll discuss solar propagation any time although I have no interest debating the subject with 'opponents' who have turf to defend. I've offered my observations, suggested some predictions. I am not interested in pithy sparring, taking offense or offending anyone.

Return to top

Are you challenging the laws of gravitation?

No. The laws of gravitation do a perfectly good job of describing the actions of bodies in space-time.
I am suggesting that a the force of gravity may not be inextricably bound by a given quantity of mass in its ground state.
What do I mean by ground state?
The relationship between gravity and mass appear to be inviolate in three three basic states of matter, solid, liquid or gas.
I am suggesting that mass in the fourth state - a plasma state - can induce gravity under certain circumstances. That is, affording more gravity than can be accounted for by a corresponding quantity of mass.

To date, no experiments with plasma experiments have had a gravimeter placed within the vicinity. It would be interesting to see if there is a response on a gravimeter near a Z-pinch, for example.

Return to top

Predictions

A good theory should have a prediction. Do you have one?

Actually, there are two predictions:
One possible way to verify this model would be to collect data on the direction of neutrinos coming from the sun with some accuracy. 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. This is because nothing, including neutrinos can pass through the body of an absolute vacuum Sun.

Accordingly, neutrinos would have to be generated in the outer layer. The result would be a neutrino halo or limb effect on the outer shell of the Sun, rather than a centralized core effect.

Although less perfect but might be very useful, would be to calculate the mass necessary to inaugurate nuclear fusion in a classic proto-sun model, place it in the center of our solar system and extrapolate the speed of its angular momentum in relation to Jupiter. The result should be a proto-star spinning more rapidly than Jupiter. "Inflate" the Sun to the suns present size and measure the drop in angular momentum/rotation speed. See if it approximates the present rotation speed of the sun.

This ought to be possible. Any astrophysicists out there?

*******

For those of you who made it all the way through, I hope you enjoyed the idea. Please understand that this is a heuristic sketch; if you want involved equations, please feel free to forge ahead.

Lots of crap on youtube. It's the crackpots sandbox.

I think this idea is straight forward, well founded, well thought out and detailed with many specifics.I do not understand why anyone would have trouble seeing it. All the information is right there.Written by someone who obviously knows a thing or two about the subject.I would love to see test results on this.

Stick to making sausage.

Thanks for your thoughtful, considered opinion. Have a nice life.

Seems something like dark energy star theory kinda...

I do agree that gravity and pressure have things in common. I personaly perfer to view the world we live in terms of pressure over Gravity/EM/Mass ect... Gravity is if not nothing more then density and if you think of emptyness as a low pressure system then anything with mass/energy would be higher pressure systems. I'm currently thinking that energy flow creates gravity that turns into mass or at least thats how it seems.

Your 1. Doesn't really hold water imo I dont think im going to go into it.

Your 2. Seems like your strongest argument but if you consider that other factors weigh in on how the sun rotates its hard to tell really why it does rotate like it does.

Your 3. Doesn't make me so sure of how much you grasp the sun size. If the outside of the sun rotated once every ten hours I dont think it would be a star anymore. I wouldnt be suprised if they found that the suns core is rotating insanely fast. I do believe the sun has a core but I would guess its make up and dynamics are well misunderstood because I dont think people generaly have a grasp on what effects the tempeturs and pressures in that place would do with energy mass gravity and such. I think it will be an amazing discovery when we do find out first hand when we build our first stars!

I suggested that when the sun was a much, much smaller proto-sun when in the process of inaugurating nuclear fusion at its core, it had a much faster rate of rotation. As it expanded it lost much of its angular momentum.

QUOTE

If the outside of the sun rotated once every ten hours I dont think it would be a star anymore