Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Thiking about the above subject I revert to the Gaussian field
aproach.
Everything in this Universe has it's own arbitrary border which must
include the Aether
otherwise if this was not so the arbitrary borders of the Earth,Sun
and other items
would have arbitrary borders that would abut each other. Since the
aether has an arbitrary border of its own it must be connected to
galactic particles and charges in equiulibrium. With the Suns
eruptions and other changes in particle distribution the passage of
particles into the arbitrary border would be never ending as would be
the escape of same which sugests a swirl of particles in orbit is what
constitutes the Aether. I understand the space program has confirmed
the presence ofmany different particles in the aether such as the
neutrinos from the Sun but I have not heard of the number or
identification of other particles that exist.Since within the aether
there is considerable number of particles with a high density I would
have thought the space program would have brought back some data with
respect to the Aether constituents and the orbit modes. Anybody have
any info on that? I am assuming the neutrinos are not part of the
orbiting particle mass but I may be wrong in that assumption, tho
these particles would only have 1/2 spin if any! Most certainly the
other type particles would not be diamagnetic otherwise neutrinos
would be part of the orbiting mass and probably contains all four
forces of the Universe including a gravitational pull e.t.c.
Regards
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

snip pure uneducated bafflegab

art, go to a good technical library and do some reading. or at least google
a bit. the constituents of the solar wind have been sampled and measured
for many years now. They are still learning some about it like the recent
contributions of the nasa satellites in detecting the periodic coupling of
the earth and solar wind magnetic fields that explains one of the methods
that lets charged particles into the earths magnetopause. the solar
neutrino flux is also fairly well understood and has been well measured.

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Art,
It's all relative.
- 'Doc

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 9, 4:51*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

snip pure uneducated bafflegab

art, go to a good technical library and do some reading. *or at least google
a bit. *the constituents of the solar wind have been sampled and measured
for many years now. *They are still learning some about it like the recent
contributions of the nasa satellites in detecting the periodic coupling of
the earth and solar wind magnetic fields that explains one of the methods
that lets charged particles into the earths magnetopause. *the solar
neutrino flux is also fairly well understood and has been well measured.

Oh, I read a lot including scientific american but I don't soak up
things as fact.
Now that I have stumbled upon static particles and Neutrinos I look at
things in a different light and from my own perspective
For instance I easily can see the updraft of moisture also including
neutrinos
which becomes a lightning discharge as the moisture changes in
temperature and forming ice
where the neutrinos clump and return to earth in a strike containing a
magnetic field which can be seen asd totally disabling any compass
needle
as well as the
circular currents created to form tornadoes and whirlpools just as
eddy currfents are created.
I see all nature as being a similar phenomina from the four forces
whether mechanical, electrical or chemical
all of which eminates from particles with charge and their own
magnetic field. These thinkings may not all be correct
but with my confidence of how radiation is created to me it is only
natural to see if these same effects exist
in other Universl phenomina which to me are clones of basic phenomin a
of nature. Yes I read a lot but I never accept things as gospel as
history shows that it takes more than one shot to solve a jigsaw
puzzle where the individual parts do not have picture until all is put
in place.where on the road to understanding we have lots of differents
knoweledge areas that interconnect in many places but is only held
together by a theory that also has a paradox Spme would call this an
out of the box thinker which industry seeks in terms of diversity that
oft times provide a different aspect to solve a problem.
Maybe that is why I was invited with my family to the USA. This sort
of thinking has now produced a antenna that is factual and not a
approximation as all antennas are today. Yes it was found by accident
by me when retracing the routes of the masters rather thasn acceptance
at face value but by the understanding from first principles with the
advances of the day which the masters did not have which often means
that I assign different names to the norm
Best Regards
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 9, 4:51 am, "Dave" wrote:

For instance I easily can see the updraft of moisture also including
neutrinos
which becomes a lightning discharge as the moisture changes in
temperature and forming ice
where the neutrinos clump and return to earth in a strike containing a
magnetic field which can be seen asd totally disabling any compass
needle
as well as the
circular currents created to form tornadoes and whirlpools just as
eddy currfents are created.

now that will put some researchers out on their buns after a lifes worth of
work studying lighting as electrons. its only neutrinos, they have been
barking up the wrong tree all along, the first 'masters' studied lightning
and static electricity they understood it to be movement of electrons, but
they were all wrong. even gauss must be wrong now since his fields are
based on the same static charges caused by electrons and protrons.
neutrinos have no charge, their motion can not cause a magnetic field, nor
do they cause tornadoes. thanks for a good laugh on an otherwise dull day.

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 9, 1:03*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Nov 9, 4:51 am, "Dave" wrote:

For instance I easily can see the updraft of moisture also including
neutrinos
which becomes a lightning discharge as the moisture changes in
temperature and forming ice
where the neutrinos clump and return to earth in a strike containing a
magnetic field which can be seen asd totally disabling any compass
needle
as well as the
circular currents created to form tornadoes and whirlpools just as
eddy currfents are created.

now that will put some researchers out on their buns after a lifes worth of
work studying lighting as electrons. *its only neutrinos, they have been
barking up the wrong tree all along, the first 'masters' studied lightning
and static electricity they understood it to be movement of electrons, but
they were all wrong. *even gauss must be wrong now since his fields are
based on the same static charges caused by electrons and protrons.
neutrinos have no charge, their motion can not cause a magnetic field, nor
do they cause tornadoes. *thanks for a good laugh on an otherwise dull day.

Interesting but the neutrinos can obtain a charge when entering the
Aether
which in itself I see as a magnetic field of particles enclosed by an
arbtrary border.
When one complets the math of comparing Gauss's law of static compared
with
his law of magnetics contained in Maxwell's laws it is not enough to
leave it at that,
a single mathematical excercize you must go on and compare with other
phenomina and physics matrhematics so your fi8ndings do not clash with
known and accepted phenomina
where substitution of ones findings can be inserted into other
accepted physics formula in terms of interconnecting
truth. Tbhus my findings have to supported by the mathematics in form
of substitutions in accepted and existing formula
as well as in the experimental trail. Thus my work has to be extended
not only by experimental results but also
via substitution in other formular excercised in other areas, this
took time but eventually I succeeded.
As far as the weather is concerned what creats lightning or tornadoes
and many other things have not been previously explained
such that they would be verified from another direction that includes
my findings.
So my thinking are not just idle thought but an effort to match my
physics findings with those of others an d this ofcourse includes the
identification of all four forces of the universe so advances can be
made on a solid foundation.
Weather is a bit chilly but not cold enough to prevent tower and
antenna work
Best regards
Art KB9MZ......,..XG

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:03:41 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 9, 4:51 am, "Dave" wrote:

For instance I easily can see the updraft of moisture also including
neutrinos
which becomes a lightning discharge as the moisture changes in
temperature and forming ice
where the neutrinos clump and return to earth in a strike containing a
magnetic field which can be seen asd totally disabling any compass
needle
as well as the
circular currents created to form tornadoes and whirlpools just as
eddy currfents are created.

now that will put some researchers out on their buns after a lifes worth of
work studying lighting as electrons. its only neutrinos, they have been
barking up the wrong tree all along, the first 'masters' studied lightning
and static electricity they understood it to be movement of electrons, but
they were all wrong. even gauss must be wrong now since his fields are
based on the same static charges caused by electrons and protrons.
neutrinos have no charge, their motion can not cause a magnetic field, nor
do they cause tornadoes. thanks for a good laugh on an otherwise dull day.


Dave,

You interpret his quote too broadly (understandable given the murk
that has to be penetrated). If you re-read the quote you offer, it
offers absolutely nothing that distinguishes the participation of
neutrinos in the process.

Neutrinos don't
1. constitute a current (they are neutral!);
2. become a lightning discharge (they go for the ride!);
3. have a magnetic field (they don't have a charge!);
4. upset a compass (they are inert!);
5. create currents (they don't have any mass!);
6. form tornadoes and whirlpools (not enough magik!).

Basically, neutrinos are freeloading bums whose only accomplishment is
to queue up for a dole. If they move with a current (which is
doubtful given their aversion to work), it is like a hobo riding the
rails. To say a hobo runs the nation's railroads is equally absurd.
Neutrinos cannot even summon up a charge where the panhandler on the
street is far more productive.

Neutrinos only rub shoulders with the doers and shakers (electrons and
ions) so that they can seem important by association. This is why
they are the pathetic cousin in physics who have to be flung at high
speeds into targets to get them to perform any form of useful work.

Neutrinos remind me of the time when Hare Krishnas, to look mystical
and spiritual, danced and clanged their cymbals in airports for spare
change.

Trying to offer neutrinos as important is the intellectual equivalent
of portraying skid-row as the Valhalla of learning.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 9, 1:03*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Nov 9, 4:51 am, "Dave" wrote:

For instance I easily can see the updraft of moisture also including
neutrinos
which becomes a lightning discharge as the moisture changes in
temperature and forming ice
where the neutrinos clump and return to earth in a strike containing a
magnetic field which can be seen asd totally disabling any compass
needle
as well as the
circular currents created to form tornadoes and whirlpools just as
eddy currfents are created.

now that will put some researchers out on their buns after a lifes worth of
work studying lighting as electrons. *its only neutrinos, they have been
barking up the wrong tree all along, the first 'masters' studied lightning
and static electricity they understood it to be movement of electrons, but
they were all wrong. *even gauss must be wrong now since his fields are
based on the same static charges caused by electrons and protrons.
neutrinos have no charge, their motion can not cause a magnetic field, nor
do they cause tornadoes. *thanks for a good laugh on an otherwise dull day.

David
You must read and understant the "electromagnetic properties of
Neutrinos"
which is up to date. You should be able to google it. In the last
decade many new facts have come to light with respect to Neutrinos
which is in fact driving the huge expeditures at CERN.
There are a lot of people usually older people who rely on the books
they used in college
50 years ago such they feel all is known and therefore do not keep up
with studies since money becomes
the replacement. If you google the title I gave you it will bring you
up to date within a year or so which will
allow you to weed out old assertions uttered by those who have retired
from study.
If it is dismal and cold in Michigan then make use of the evening by
reading up on the subject to get up to date
Regards
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:41:07 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

You must read and understant the "electromagnetic properties of
Neutrinos"
which is up to date.

"Because neutrinos are very weakly interacting, neutrino detectors
must be very large in order to detect a significant number of
neutrinos."

It would seem that the detector (and the corresponding transmitter) of
neutrinos would have to be larger than a shoe box, or two. In fact,
the size of CERN (that is, afterall, why they built it) which is
"with a diameter of 2 kilometres built in a tunnel"
would scarce lift the S-Meter off its peg.

Reading about these lazy welfare queens of physics may be entertaining
on a cold winter's night, but throwing a few bajillion in the
fireplace won't add one calorie of warmth.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 9, 1:03*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Nov 9, 4:51 am, "Dave" wrote:

For instance I easily can see the updraft of moisture also including
neutrinos
which becomes a lightning discharge as the moisture changes in
temperature and forming ice
where the neutrinos clump and return to earth in a strike containing a
magnetic field which can be seen asd totally disabling any compass
needle
as well as the
circular currents created to form tornadoes and whirlpools just as
eddy currfents are created.

now that will put some researchers out on their buns after a lifes worth of
work studying lighting as electrons. *its only neutrinos, they have been
barking up the wrong tree all along, the first 'masters' studied lightning
and static electricity they understood it to be movement of electrons, but
they were all wrong. *even gauss must be wrong now since his fields are
based on the same static charges caused by electrons and protrons.
neutrinos have no charge, their motion can not cause a magnetic field, nor
do they cause tornadoes. *thanks for a good laugh on an otherwise dull day.

David
Pull yourself together.
Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)
Neutrons are not within the arbitrary boundary provided by Gauss
Neutrons DO contain charge
It is assumed there are anti neutrons because they are suspected of
being rotating dipoles
this because they have a magnetic field
Yes they do have a magnetic field
They are attracted to diamagnetic materials as free electrons where
they do not become absorbed.
Detectors were placed underground on the ASSUMPTION that they passed
thru earth without stopping
Updrafts in storms suck up diamagnetic materials which include
neutrinos, frogs and the like
Take away the moisture that they rest upon until the resting density
is high whence they return to the Earth
mainly a diamagnetic material.
And it goes on and on.
Please read up on the properties of Neutrons as there has been a lot
found out in Japan, U.S. and other places
in the last few years that have turned the info on Neutrons on its
head.
Old books are just not up to date
Regards
Art
Lightning strikes or the descent of charged particles will send nearby
magnets haywire.
Detectors of heavy water are large in area because the size/mass of
neutrinos is so small.
Cern is applying high speed to neutrinos purely to obtain an impact of
such power that it will
provide details

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.


Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

snip crap

neutron: classification baryon, electric charge 0

neutrino: elementary particle, electric charge 0

electron: elementary particle, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

proton: classification baryon, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 9, 7:15*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.

Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

snip crap

neutron: classification baryon, electric charge 0

neutrino: elementary particle, electric charge 0

electron: elementary particle, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

proton: classification baryon, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, where does this information come from?. To my unqualified mind it
appears to be some what dated
possibly back to the the time that neutrnos was considered to be
without mass!
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:15:00 GMT, wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.

For a neutrino, certainly. No charge to repel, no mass to get in the
way, no interference because it is unattractive (like a sidewalk wino
on a Saturday night... the "Lost Weekend" of particle physics).
Neutrino: an electron without cojones;
a proton without that wild thang.

Who would sit up nights waiting for a phone call (-um- radio program)
from a Neutrino?

***** Google approved and validated, trust no imitators *****

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

Art, you seem to be confusing neutrons and
neutrinos. It is unfortunate that their names
are so similar. Electrons and neutrinos are
leptons. Protons and neutrons are baryons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 10, 6:43*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
*Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

Art, you seem to be confusing neutrons and
neutrinos. It is unfortunate that their names
are so similar. Electrons and neutrinos are
leptons. Protons and neutrons are baryons.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Thanks,
I will watch out for that in future
Same goes for Lorentz and Coulumb they bvoth have
patriots with very similar lnames.Maybe that is why
some of the odd statements are being made.about
Neutrinos and their respective charges.
I think I should let this thread fade away
Regards
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 10, 7:28*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:43*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
*Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

Art, you seem to be confusing neutrons and
neutrinos. It is unfortunate that their names
are so similar. Electrons and neutrinos are
leptons. Protons and neutrons are baryons.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Thanks,
*I will watch out for that in future
Same goes for Lorentz and Coulumb they bvoth have
patriots with very similar lnames.Maybe that is why
some of the odd statements are being made.about
*Neutrinos and their respective charges.
I think I should let this thread fade away
Regards
Art

While I am at it the particle that I refer to may well not be a
neutrinos
but it does seem to fit. Neutrons and all the other chemical particles
that I have negligently brought into the subject
do not have a place in my theory with respect to radiation
just a particle which I feel inclined to call a Neutrinos
I say this for archive purposes so the error that I have been making
in my typing
is cleared for the record
Thanks Cecil
Art
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.

Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

snip crap

neutron: classification baryon, electric charge 0

neutrino: elementary particle, electric charge 0

electron: elementary particle, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

proton: classification baryon, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, where does this information come from?. To my unqualified mind it
appears to be some what dated
possibly back to the the time that neutrnos was considered to be
without mass!
Art

Just about anywhere one would care to look.

None of the above information has changed in the slightest since many
decades before the 1998 Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector results.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:15:00 GMT, wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.

For a neutrino, certainly. No charge to repel, no mass to get in the
way, no interference because it is unattractive (like a sidewalk wino
on a Saturday night... the "Lost Weekend" of particle physics).
Neutrino: an electron without cojones;
a proton without that wild thang.

Who would sit up nights waiting for a phone call (-um- radio program)
from a Neutrino?

***** Google approved and validated, trust no imitators *****

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Current thinking is that neutrinos have a mass on the order of 0.1 eV.

The mass of an electron for comparison is about 0.5 MeV.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Nov 10, 11:05*am, wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:15:00 GMT, wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.

For a neutrino, certainly. *No charge to repel, no mass to get in the
way, no interference because it is unattractive (like a sidewalk wino
on a Saturday night... the "Lost Weekend" of particle physics). * * * *
* * * *Neutrino: an electron without cojones;
* * * *a proton without that wild thang.

Who would sit up nights waiting for a phone call (-um- radio program)
from a Neutrino?

***** Google approved and validated, trust no imitators *****

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Current thinking is that neutrinos have a mass on the order of 0.1 eV.

The mass of an electron for comparison is about 0.5 MeV.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Thank you for that. Hopefully that is put to bed
Art

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

In article ,
wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Pull yourself together.

Apparently easier said then done.

Neutrons ARE a form of electrons. (leptons)

snip crap

neutron: classification baryon, electric charge 0

neutrino: elementary particle, electric charge 0

electron: elementary particle, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

proton: classification baryon, electric charge 1.6 X 10-19 C

I wonder if Art meant to say "Neutrinos ARE a form of electrons.
(leptons)".

That would be closer to the truth than what was actually quoted above,
in that electrons and neutrinos are both leptons.

It's still incorrect, though, according to the definitions I've read.
Although neutrinos and electrons are both leptons, that doesn't mean
that "neutrinos are a form of electrons".

By analogy: dogs and cats are both mammals. That doesn't mean that
dogs are a type of cat, or that cats are a type of dog.

For what it's worth - I have seen no evidence at all to indicate that
flows of neutrinos have anything whatsoever to do with the behavior of
antennas or with the transfer of electromagnetic energy from/to
antennas and/or free space.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:25:50 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

While I am at it the particle that I refer to may well not be a
neutrinos

It is not like a neutrino ...but:
but it does seem to fit.

A massless, chargeless particle works for enhancing RF radiation?

Neutrons and all the other chemical particles
that I have negligently brought into the subject
do not have a place in my theory with respect to radiation

That pretty much tosses out the baby with the bathwater.

just a particle which I feel inclined to call a Neutrinos

So, you now claim to have invented/discovered an unknown particle that
you are going to name a Neutrinos? (Convention would probably bristle
at adding just an s makes it respectable science.) Is this a
creationist particle?

Why not call it an Artrino or Unwintron? How did you discover it?
What did you use as a detector? Were you listening to 160M when it
came on with a signature tune like Big Ben and the BBC?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Aether constituents and certainly none of them would be.....
 

Quantum foam = Aether. End of discussion.


Ed, NM2K (for a bit longer)