THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

Dave wrote:
welcome back art, i needed a good laugh today! your statement about
tornados being caused by eddy currents is a real knee slapper!

From Webster's: "eddy - a current at variance with the
main current in a stream of liquid or gas, esp. one
having a rotary or whirling motion."

Wouldn't tornadoes, spawned around the edge of a
hurricane, meet that definition of "eddy current"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Sep 5, 8:03*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
welcome back art, i needed a good laugh today! *your statement about
tornados being caused by eddy currents is a real knee slapper!

*From Webster's: "eddy - a current at variance with the
main current in a stream of liquid or gas, esp. one
having a rotary or whirling motion."

Wouldn't tornadoes, spawned around the edge of a
hurricane, meet that definition of "eddy current"?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

It is similar to a helicopter or a Sedgeway where one must have
stability.
That is why the rotator at the rear of a helicopter follows the
Universal law
of action and reaction mimicing the eddy force.
Same goes for the weather. Lightning is a electrical occillation of
many frequencies
thus follows the same Universal law. When there is a heavy storm that
picks up energy
from the ground and lightning occurrs ir must produce a circulating
force in equal and opposite fashion.
When I spoke of the weather I used it as an example of the swirling
eddy current
where the rest was speculation based on same. Exactly the same
motions occur during
radiation in the manner I spoke of in the beginning of this thread.
Simple physics
Art Unwin KB9MZ

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Sep 5, 9:26*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:03*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

Dave wrote:
welcome back art, i needed a good laugh today! *your statement about
tornados being caused by eddy currents is a real knee slapper!

*From Webster's: "eddy - a current at variance with the
main current in a stream of liquid or gas, esp. one
having a rotary or whirling motion."

Wouldn't tornadoes, spawned around the edge of a
hurricane, meet that definition of "eddy current"?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

It is similar to a helicopter or a Sedgeway where one must have
stability.
That is why the rotator at the rear of a helicopter follows the
Universal law
of action and reaction mimicing the eddy force.
Same goes for the weather. Lightning is a electrical occillation of
many frequencies
thus follows the same Universal law. When there is a heavy storm that
picks up energy
from the ground and lightning occurrs ir must produce a circulating
force in equal and opposite fashion.
When I spoke of the weather I used it as an example of the swirling
eddy current
*where the rest was speculation based on same. Exactly the same
motions occur during
*radiation in the manner I spoke of in the beginning of this thread.
Simple physics
Art Unwin KB9MZ

Yunno This thread high lights why electrical engineers fail to fully
understand radiation
by viewing it as a electrical phenomina instead of the adherence to
the Universal laws.
True parallel radiators produce radiation when applying just a portion
of the forces in the standard
model such that antennas are formed horizontally to include the
gravitational forces and ignoring the electro weak force
which for equilibrium means the radiator must be tilted. If one
follows the laws of equilibrium which Maxwell's laws do
all forces must be taken into account for three dimensional
resolvement where the yagi involves just a two dimensional
structure, which in itself does not represent ALL the vectors involved
produced by all four forces. The four forces are there ofcourse
because without the "weak force" radiation cannot occur, It is this
force that pushes charges to the outside of a conducter
by the swirling action of the eddy current, which is commonly
reffered to by electrical engineers a "skin depth",.which is also made
use of
in non destructive metal measurements where a fissure breaks the
rotational closed current circuit.
Until scientists stop using computers in the hope that something will
emerge to advance science there will be no progress especially when
they are wedded to that printed in books which is representitive of
present day theory only which times past has shown to be oft times
incorrect.
Correct use of Universal laws such as those of Maxwell are based on
equilibrium where all forces are accounted for and without which
radiation cannot occur. Without acceptance of such we only have self
perceived experts in the hobby of ham radio.

Happy days
Art Unwin KB9MZ...........xg

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

"Art Unwin" wrote

-massive drivel snip-

Without acceptance of such we only have self
perceived experts in the hobby of ham radio.

Happy days
Art Unwin KB9MZ...........xg


Art: I checked your web page... soooo glad to see
that you've corrected the errors, and have posted only
what you KNOW about antennas!

Mike W5CHR
Memphis

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Sep 5, 12:05*pm, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote

-massive drivel snip-

*Without acceptance of such we only have self
perceived experts in the hobby of ham radio.

Happy days
Art Unwin KB9MZ...........xg

Art: I checked your web page... soooo glad to see
that you've corrected the errors, and have posted only
what you KNOW about antennas!

Mike W5CHR
Memphis

What I "know": is what I can prove that is correct using accepted
known Universal laws such as the laws of Newton and Maxwell as taught
universally.
I will provide all of this when I get the go ahead for my page.
If you can disprove without doubt what I state as a viable theory you
can shatter by providing
evidence where the theory does not hold. This is the way science
progreses and not by stoking the fire
and exercising a loose mouth Maybe it is a mistake coming back and
sharing information on antennas
when all that is required is a target for the uninformed
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.........xg
Art.

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Sep 4, 11:45*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:45?pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
In Switzerland on the 10th of this month they are going to project a
particle thru the Earths crust at the speed of light. The particle
that they are projecting comes from outer space.

Well actually they are going project 2 locally generated proton beams
around a giant circle at 99.99% the speed of light so that they
collide.

But don't let easily verifiable facts get in your way.

So what does this
have to do with antennas?

Nothing.

Low energy particles are in abundance on Earth as they are in space

Actually, high energy particles are in abundance on Earth as they
are in space, they are called cosmic rays, but again don't let easily
verifiable facts get in your way.

but they obtain their own magnetic field as they enter the earths
arbitrary field and settle on such things as antennas made from a
diamagnetic material!

And thus we have completed our journey to la-la land.

Hope you enjoyed the trip.

snip remaining babble

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

When one referes to Cosmic rays it really shows that he is uninformed.
Informed people would call it an accumullation of particles that
continually bombard
our earth some of which release their energy when collisions occur
with the earths magnetic field.

Wrong, the term "cosmic rays" is a misnomer as they are actually
individually arriving partcles, about 90% of which are protons,
9% are helium nuclei or alpha particles and about 1% are electrons.

They collide with the molecules of the atmosphere and produce a
cascade of lighter particles.

Such particles are usually clumps bounded together by the force of
colour that is released in the form of an Aurora
where some speculate it *is that that feeds energy to the weather
clouds of Earth that provides time varying magnetic fields
which can create tornadoes as a form of eddy current. Those that
bombard or float thru the earth's boundary are in single particle form
and rest on surfaces that will not absorb them into their overall
atomic pattern. Since the earth is more than 95% diagmatic they can
really settle anywhere.

Utter, babbling nonsense.

Cosmic rays arrive individually and are not clumped.

It is these particles that I am refering to and that is not babble
unless you can prove otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...www.auger.org/

Want more proof you are babbling nonsense?

These same particles cannot radiate in
space under their own means but only when under the earth's
gravitational influence and where the anti gravity forces become a
reality.(Newton's law in action)

More babbling nonsense.

The particles come from space.

Gravity has little influence on them.

There is no such thing as "the anti gravity forces".

The velocities and energies are such that Newtonian physics doesn't
apply and you are forced to use relativistic physics.

If you are not aware of the particular experiment that I was referring
to then your posting was intended to cause anger *because of the
absence
of anything that could be seen as adding to a conversation in a polite
manner.

There is no such experiment.

www.cern.ch

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, following your advice I just entered "cern" in Google.
It immediately states as correct everything I have stated in detail
except for the identity
of the "weak" force which I have subsequently discovered.
If CERN provides such an outline of the progress on present day
science and the
path that they are proceding upon then on what premise do you have to
advise
others that all that it states is false?
I recommend that all viewers do the same as I just did and decide
whether
you are correct in the face of what "cern" states !
I see no point in continueing this thread for the benefit of loose
mouths
Art

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:11:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:45 Jim Pennino wrote:
www.cern.ch
Jim, following your advice I just entered "cern" in Google.

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Jim, following your advice I just entered "cern" in Google.

Yeah, sure, that's what I said.

It immediately states as correct everything I have stated in detail

Yeah, sure, of course it does.

Yeah, you're genius all right; sane too.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Sep 5, 2:25*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Jim, following your advice I just entered "cern" in Google.

Yeah, sure, that's what I said.

It immediately states as correct everything I have stated in detail

Yeah, sure, of course it does.

Yeah, you're genius all right; sane too.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If I am a genius it is only by comparison to the likes of you.
Put in "cern"in google where the first item that comes up is Cern's
stated purposes where they specifically state there are four forces in
the standard model
So your idea that the "weak" force is fictitious as well as a swarm of
particles should be referred to as cosmic "rays" whatever "rays" are
totally incorrect as well as your other statements. Other readers can
review the article
and judge for themselves your level of knoweledge in physics and
radiation.
Remember, when you exercise your freedom of free speech you supply the
means
for others to judge exactly what and who you really are. You would
have been better off
giving the reasons why the weak force is fictitious thus showing a
measure of your logic abilities
rather than allowing your lack of knoweledge forcing you to rely
emotionaly on the impact of insults!
Art......nuf aid

THE WEAK FORCE AND THE C.E.R.N. EXPERIMENT
 

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Put in "cern"in google

How silly when Jim already supplied the direct link:
www.cern.ch

Cern's
stated purposes where they specifically state there are four forces in
the standard model

From CERN itself:
CERN’s mission
Research, technology, collaboration, education
found on CERN's own web page "About us" where nowhere appears any
references to any number of forces, nor any discussion of standard
models.

a swarm of particles should be referred to as cosmic "rays" whatever "rays" are
totally incorrect

Searching CERN's own website for Cosmic Rays reveals 12 documents
within the first one of which clearly states:
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's
atmosphere from outer space.

The second of those 12 articles, in the FIRST SENTENCE states:
The giant CMS particle detector at CERN has been sealed and
switched on to collect data for an important series of tests using
cosmic ray particles.

The third of those 12 articles, in the FIRST SENTENCE states:
Cosmic particles are raining down on CERN.

The fourth of those 12 articles, in the FIRST SENTENCE 2nd paragraph
states:
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's
atmosphere from outer space.

and on and on.

Other readers can
review the article
and judge for themselves your level of knoweledge in physics and
radiation.

how true.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC