On Sep 14, 10:26*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
You've just unvailed the dirty secret that antennas don't work in
space and that all the so called communications with Appolo, Pioneer,
Mir, ISS, the shuttle and all telecommunications satellites is faked.

Now you had better be on the watch for the black helicopters for reveling
this.

No. *But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium
which exists, EVEN, in space, and yet, unseen to-date, and end up
"striking" the antenna(s) in question ... but then, most have always
accepted waves need a "medium" to propagate on/in ... but then--assign
it the name "either" and grown men cower in the shadows, in fear! *ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

John the problem as I see it is how the magnetic field is bestowed on
a unbound particle
that is not rejected by the Earth"s magnetic field but allowed to
ecape from the Sun's magnetic field
.. It is this I have no explanation for
and despite all reference to garbage nobody can supply the true
creation of radiation.
More light needs to be shed on the subject of space. to determine what
one calls garbage
because of a compressed field of knoweledge where another without
those constraints see it as a treasure.
I have a strong suspicion that scientists have assigned diiferent
names based on the theory assigned to one
many of which there is no evidence of their existance
Best regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John the problem as I see it is how the magnetic field is bestowed on
a unbound particle
that is not rejected by the Earth"s magnetic field but allowed to
ecape from the Sun's magnetic field
. It is this I have no explanation for
and despite all reference to garbage nobody can supply the true
creation of radiation.
More light needs to be shed on the subject of space. to determine what
one calls garbage
because of a compressed field of knoweledge where another without
those constraints see it as a treasure.
I have a strong suspicion that scientists have assigned diiferent
names based on the theory assigned to one
many of which there is no evidence of their existance
Best regards
Art

There is actually a LOT in the few words above, it is deceptively
stated--although, perhaps, without intention; had to really think about
it a bit:

I quite agree with the fact that what you refer to as "have assigned
different names [to] ..." is/are at the center of what you speak, what
the "either is" and what the Hadron project is about to attempt to look
at, in greater detail ... indeed, it is where the "new
knowledge/discoveries" are about to emerge from (if there is any chance
that will happen--at all.)

Hopefully, this all will end up pointing at new ways to design antennas
to take advantage of "its'" (the eithers') properties. And, is an area
adjacent to, in the very least, the one you are in the process of
contemplating/imagining ...

The earths magnetic field (indeed, any static/changing magnetic field
for that matter), gravity, suns particles/emissions/etc. all depend on
the "either" you place in question; when you sprinkle iron filings on a
sheet of paper and position a magnet below--this is what you look at; I
believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force" (or, is
intrinsically related), but talk about a misnomer!

We just spin our wheels with little progress ahead ... but then Einstein
even referred to it as, and I paraphrase, "un-comprehend-able!"

But then, perhaps some of "these things" are just shooting bullets
(particles) as some picture the "particles." One must acknowledge this,
although I have come NOT to "believe it", at this point.

We can't know until we really "know", and even then we may have yet to
"prove" it; and, therein lies the real problem(s). For now, we must
face the goons who poke fun at men and women who wonder, and dream, yet
are certain "they" know SOMETHING EXISTS THERE.

You are correct to focus your vision(s) towards the Hadron project ...
it is at least one hope of vindication! :-(

And, even if you still do not see the either as I do -- you will "come
'round!" grin

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force"

Magnetism is one aspect of the electromagnetic force.
The "weak force" is associated with atomic nuclei.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force"

Magnetism is one aspect of the electromagnetic force.
The "weak force" is associated with atomic nuclei.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force

Cecil:

You have a real talent for those "simple statements" of yours; you
know?; the ones which end up provoking arguments/discussions which are
never-ending ... you must excuse me, I have a prior appointment ... wink

However, in the end yawn, just another elephant with three different
blind-men "taking a look" at it ... straight-faced-look and a chuckle

However, as "correct" as possible, seen from the "perspective" we
presently stand upon ... ;-)

Warmest regards,
JS

On Sep 15, 8:11*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force"

Magnetism is one aspect of the electromagnetic force.
The "weak force" is associated with atomic nuclei.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, if one follows the above url to electroweak interaction it
states the connection between electromagnetic
and the weak force interactionas emminating from a single force ie
weak force is part and parel of the
primary force. In radiation a time varying magnetic field also creats
the circulating field ( parity of forces).
such that eddy currents matches the description inferred by the above
electroweak interaction .
Personally I see both interactions as being one and the same thing. In
the path to this segment it infers the weak force
is also in free space and it is that I do not understand, as the root
cause of action is the intersection of two separate
magnetic fields and the amalgamation of two forces producing a
triangle of forces summation
in three dimensional form ( three movements of freedom required for
stabalization).Thus the mystery is how two magnetic fields are created
and more important WHEN !
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
Personally I see both interactions as being one and the same thing.

If you mean that they have been unified, that is correct.

In the path to this segment it infers the weak force
is also in free space and it is that I do not understand, ...

Understand that free space is not empty. There
exists a quantum structure about which not much
is yet understood. Google "dark mass" and
"dark energy". Everything that we can see and
measure appears to be about 5% of what exists.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 15, 12:17*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Personally I see both interactions as being one and the same thing.

If you mean that they have been unified, that is correct.

In the path to this segment it infers the weak force
is also in free space and it is that I do not understand, ...

Understand that free space is not empty. There
exists a quantum structure about which not much
is yet understood. Google "dark mass" and
"dark energy". Everything that we can see and
measure appears to be about 5% of what exists.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

That theory does seem to explain some recent observations. However, it
is still theory, not absolute fact as you seem to proclaim above
("THERE EXISTS A QUANTUM STRUCTURE about which not much is yet
understood"). The structure may or may not exist. I have no problem
with it since nothing says that all matter must be in the form of
nuclei, protons that can be combined in an orderly manner to form
something large enough that we can "see". In fact, it likely does not
exist physically as "matter"; rather, the theory is simply a concept
that explains some observations. Given that matter is 'anything that
occupies space AND has mass" dark "matter" could be any entity (like
energy, that is a known entity) that can be shown to have a mass
equivalent and behaves like mass under certain conditions as photons
do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or
medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves.

wrote:
The structure may or may not exist.

Think about it. If you were somewhere where the
structure of space didn't exist, you would be
outside of the boundaries of our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...
do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or
medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves.

So, let's call it "whipped bananas" and let it go at that ...
traditionally, it has been called the ether or aether ... I just tend to
follow the tradition of the men who first defined it ...

Regards,
JS