An Empty Sun - Is Gravity being Induced?

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10102
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Packing my stuff and moving to Denver like you should be doing

PostFri Mar 12, 2010 6:27 pm » by Savwafair2012


This guy seems to believe that the sun is actualy hollow and the theory behind it is astounding :badair:
He simply suggests that the Sun is a shell of sustained charged plasma encasing a non-space/absolute vacuum that induces gravity. Predicts neutrinos come from solar shell, not core. A prediction and high energy plasma laboratory experiment is proposed:


Upload to Disclose.tv

Image
FAIR USE NOTICE.
Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, . http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 pm

PostSun Mar 14, 2010 10:57 pm » by Purebase


my theory makes more sense than this guys theory.

i believe gravity is an outside force on our universe.
the big bang is like a bomb going off under water.
the void surrounding the big bang is like the water.
when the water/void is dissplaced from the bigbang/bomb,
it wants to naturally fill up the dissplaced space.
it is the pressure of the void pushing back on the expanding universe that creates gravity.
and that ladies and gents is my theory .
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either".
Einstein
Image

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostSun Mar 14, 2010 11:51 pm » by Lowsix


By far the most interesting post to hit the FP in weeks...

Bump, because everyone needs to watch this one.

This is the most coherent laymans theory ive ever heard.
Now of course we are all at a disadvantage being laymen...
But of all of the descriptions of the energy/mass/magnetics/gravity discussions
this one seems to ring the most true, even based on his very simple analogies.

It all hinges on how accurate our mass assesments are, and what theyt are based on.
It would appear to be easy to prove/disprove if we knew our mass projections of the sun were vulnerable to mistakes. Because i think, as it is now, the assumption of matter mass is applied liberally to the sun. If we know beyond doubt, that our current assumption is true, his vacuum theory folds. But if our mass theories are fallible, then it leaves room for that vaccuum in the center...

Great stuff to chew on...
Total disclose material.
Post that shit on the vid page.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:10 pm
Location: Neutral Zone

PostSun Mar 14, 2010 11:58 pm » by Svaha


purebase wrote:my theory makes more sense than this guys theory.

i believe gravity is an outside force on our universe.
the big bang is like a bomb going off under water.
the void surrounding the big bang is like the water.
when the water/void is dissplaced from the bigbang/bomb,
it wants to naturally fill up the dissplaced space.
it is the pressure of the void pushing back on the expanding universe that creates gravity.
and that ladies and gents is my theory .


Nice theory, it's the same as life, from the moment we are born we want to go back home again.
It's the same attraction to the core that you 'found' in your theory.
Thoughts create vortexes --> gravity.
Follow your bliss(ters) - Joseph Campbell

jetxvii

PostMon Mar 15, 2010 12:14 am » by jetxvii


Naw, I just don't buy this one, it makes sense the way he explains it, but it by passes alot of known methods of combustion, gravity and solar radiation friction...

I'll stick with the sun being a big gas bubble...... actually now if you look at it that way technically the Sun is a big empty gas bubble, so technically it makes sense, but not the way he explains it, I would believe if he was talking about a planet like Jupiter but not a flaming radiating star.

as shown here his theory would be better suited to a non combustible planet:


Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:21 pm

PostWed Mar 17, 2010 4:29 pm » by Gfellow


jetxvii wrote:Naw, I just don't buy this one, it makes sense the way he explains it, but it by passes alot of known methods of combustion, gravity and solar radiation friction...


Well, I'm good with that. However, this is a theory with teeth. Keep in mind that the supposition is falsifiable, meaning the author (yours truly) offers an observational prediction and a repeatable laboratory experiment.

Writer
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:04 pm

PostWed Mar 17, 2010 4:34 pm » by Enlil


This kind of goes along with this.


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:39 pm

PostWed Mar 17, 2010 5:13 pm » by Blotto


enlil wrote:This kind of goes along with this.


Upload to Disclose.tv



i dont agree with some of that because, one could argue that we today are at a point were we could potentialy leave this planet, so if we are at a point were we can leave this planet then so could other life going back billions of years. hate to use the star wars death star analogy, but you can see the point . a roaming artifcial planet .

but as for the sun, people suggest ufos use it as a stargate, so i can see it being possible. i know you will get people saying but the ufos would burn up .. but i think i ufo traveling at speed would not burn up .. it all depends on what its made of, and other factors. kind of like the mythbusters experiment were you dip your fingers in molten lead . very quick without getting burned.

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN5aMjTCfo4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN5aMjTCfo4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Writer
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:04 pm

PostWed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm » by Enlil


blotto wrote:
enlil wrote:This kind of goes along with this.


Upload to Disclose.tv



i dont agree with some of that because, one could argue that we today are at a point were we could potentialy leave this planet, so if we are at a point were we can leave this planet then so could other life going back billions of years. hate to use the star wars death star analogy, but you can see the point . a roaming artifcial planet .

but as for the sun, people suggest ufos use it as a stargate, so i can see it being possible. i know you will get people saying but the ufos would burn up .. but i think i ufo traveling at speed would not burn up .. it all depends on what its made of, and other factors. kind of like the mythbusters experiment were you dip your fingers in molten lead . very quick without getting burned.

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN5aMjTCfo4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN5aMjTCfo4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]


Very good point...Mars here we come. :nails:

Conspirator
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:39 pm

PostWed Mar 17, 2010 5:56 pm » by Blotto


from wikki intresting read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

Induced gravity (or Emergent gravity) is an idea in quantum gravity that space-time background emerges as a mean field approximation of underlying microscopic degrees of freedom, similar to the fluid mechanics approximation of Bose–Einstein condensates. The concept was originally proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967.

Sakharov observed that many condensed matter systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are identical to general relativity quantitatively. Crystal defects can look like torsion, for example. His idea was to start with an arbitrary background pseudo-Riemannian manifold (in modern treatments, possibly with torsion) and introduce quantum fields (matter) on it but not introduce any gravitational dynamics explicitly. This gives rise to an effective action which to one-loop order contains the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant. In other words, general relativity arises as an emergent property of matter fields and is not put in by hand. On the other hand, such models typically predict huge cosmological constants.

Some argue that the particular models proposed by Sakharov and others have been proven impossible by the Weinberg-Witten theorem. But, models with emergent gravity are always possible as long as other things, such as spacetime dimensions, emerge together with gravity. Developments in AdS/CFT correspondence after 1997 suggest that the microphysical degrees of freedom in induced gravity might be radically different. The bulk space-time arises as an emergent phenomenon of the quantum degrees of freedom that live in the boundary of the space-tim


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook