Beam Neutrinos

  • 254 Replies
  • 49665 Views
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #240 on: December 04, 2012, 05:33:58 AM »
I'm on my phone so I apologise for typos. Firstly neutrinos do have mass.  This is now and matter of record.  Neutrinos are not hard to detect because they are small they are hard to detect because they don't interact. They would still be hard to detect if they were massive.  I'm not sure what this is and Ian't stuff is about neutrinos are in the same way electrons are.  Their lack of interaction allows one to observe some unusual quantum mechanical properties.  These properties are not unique to the neutrino just their properties lend them to observing such properties. 

I'm not sure that much of the rest of i can give a scientific opinion on.  If there's a particular issue you'd like me to diacuss please present it formally.  I'm a physicist not a philosopher.  Although I'm yet to hear of anything going faster than light.  Other than the phase velocity of a wave.

Also I just realised what is a 'telluric aether' literally is it not a greek-latin portmanteau that essentially means Earths atmosphere or sky?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 03:53:48 PM by bowler »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #241 on: December 05, 2012, 01:05:28 AM »
Dr. T. Henry Moray was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

Dr. Thomas Henry Moray, an electrical engineer, began research on aerial static generators in 1910. He succeeded in deriving usable electrical energy from the earth's electrostatic field. Many others had achieved similar results in the century preceding Dr. Moray. Patents of "aerial batteries" fill the archives (Vion, Ward, Dewey, Palenscar, Pennock, Plausen). Their remarkable efficiency required only the establishment of elevated stations in appropriate places, each differing in the actual mode of extracting the atmospheric energies.


During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



Nathan Stubblefield and his work on telluric currents:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/stubblefield.html



Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:

Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.


In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

Dr. Le Bon was utterly dumbfounded when forcing theory into fact, other colleagues announced the "immutability of radioactive decay". He also perceived where their erroneous logic would ultimately lead when they cited "internal instability" as the source of radioactivity. Separating themselves once more from the external world of energy, they would lose more than they imagined themselves gaining.


Le Bon disagreed when physicists began isolating the heavy metals as "the only radioactive elements. He had already distinctly demonstrated for them that "all matter was to a degree radioactive". He was first to write books on the conversion of ordinary matter into rays, an activity he claimed was constant. He showed that this flux from ordinary matter could be measured. Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


http://www.rexresearch.com/lebonmat/lebonmat.htm



The work done by Dr. Dayton Miller on detecting ether (telluric currents):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.



Therefore, bowler, you have at your disposal the best and most profound scientific proofs re: the existence of telluric currents (ether).


Please read again:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1422469.html#msg1422469


The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino).

W.A. Scott Murray described this as ‘an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick’.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.


The neutrino is simply the detected presence of the telluric currents (made up of subquarks, please see my previous message); they travel not in straight lines, but in helical paths of various wavelengths (depends on the strength of the initial energy of the signal how many telluric currents are actually activated). It is claimed here that the Super K detector has a 1000m overburden of rock, and is located under the peak of Mt. Ikeno-yama, which has a height of 1360m above sea level, which leaves some 360 meters to be accounted for (T2K, which shoots neutrinos at a downward angle of about 1 degree from sea level, some 300 km distance). Let us not forget that the Super K detector uses some 11,000 photomultipliers which would activate the aether around the detectors to a high degree, thus constituting a "target" for the telluric currents which pass nearby (at various amplitudes/wavelengths). The initial input of the telluric currents shot at some downward angle is picked up by the currents which travel in helical paths, some of them certainly reaching some 360 meters above ground to reach the activated aether around the 11,000 photomultipliers. The telluric current theory is the most important fact re: the production of "neutrino" beams, which is not taken into account in current quantum physics (unfortunately).

It is the end of discussion here: the proper, correct theory of neutrinos accounts very nicely for a flat surface of the Earth.


A few words about Nikola Tesla.

He was truly the greatest physicist of all time, the inventor of: alternating current electricity, wireless communication, radar, television, radio, robotics, internet, cryogenics.  He discovered and set forth the theory for the first time for: laser beams, fluorescent light, x-ray devices, remote control technology.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm

http://www.tfcbooks.com/mainpage/site_map.htm

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (original patent, published in April 1905)

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


A clear and perfect demonstration by the greatest scientist ever that a signal sent through the telluric currents can and does exceed the speed of light easily.


Here you will find the details about the experiments done by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, Dr. Bruce DePalma and other on the dextrorotatory and laevorotatory nature of the telluric currents:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 03:32:25 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #242 on: December 05, 2012, 08:38:59 AM »
I love how Levee continues to rely on centuries-old science to attempt to disprove modern-day experiments.

Bravo, Levee. I'm sure science will be happy to know that everything we've learned since Tesla doesn't count.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #243 on: December 05, 2012, 12:48:59 PM »
T. Henry Moray was, according to wikipedia, an electrical engineer as was Tessla. I know next to nothing about T. Henry Moray, Tessla however was one of the greatest electrical engineers ever. Along, it has to be said, with Edison. What he wasn't was a terribly gifted physicist, the Lorentz was to physics what Tessla was to electrical engineering in my book. While Tessla did talk about physics he never published particularly extensively and his theoretical opinions were never formalized. What ideas he did express were at always at odds with the experimental evidence to hand. His failure to even appreciate the existence of the electron was rather belligerent given that other scientists at the time were measuring it's mass, charge and other properties. This isn't to take away what he achieved much of which was not appreciated until after his death but simply demonstrates that engineering and physics can be much more different disciplines than they appear from the outside, and greats in one are very rarely greats in the other.

Speaking of physics, lets jump in. A telluric current is nothing to do with the aether. A telluric current is simply an electrical current flowing through the Earth due to one of a multitude of phenomena. Certainly has nothing to do with neutrinos so I think we can put that to one side.

Most of what you say about the original motivation for postulating neutrinos is a matter of pubic record. Although the theoretical motivation for the neutrino is perhaps stronger than you have put it. Without it beta decay violates conservation of momentum. Fortunately for Pauli as quantum field theory developed it turned out that the neutrino does interact, just rarely. Technology developed quickly and the particle was discovered in 1956 via their interaction with protons,
v + p = e+ + n.

The development of electroweak theory by Glashow, Weinberg and Salam gave a solid quantum mechanical basis for the neutrino field. The properties of neutrino interactions are very well predicted by theory but quantum field theory is quite happy with a massless neutrino, and the working assumption was that it did have no mass for a while. The theoretical basis for proving that a neutrino has mass was given by Pontecorvo in 1957. Although there was good experimental reasons for think he was right for years the issue wasn't actually put to bed once and for all until 1999. One of the big developments in the 1990s was the ability not just to detect neutrinos but to reconstruct their kinematics. This meant that as opposed to a flash of light we could reconstruct the direction and momentum of the neutrino was good accuracy. For the first time we would absolutely track solar neutrinos by saying 'that come from the sun' as opposed to 'that had an energy consistent with what nuclear physics tells us should come form the sun'. Thankfully due to excellent work from Ray Davis we had phenomenally good predictions of how many neutrinos come from the sun anyway but still it's nice to be able to produce nice pictures. Either way from this we know neutrinos are massive and we are still trying to get the exact masses. Interestingly we know the differences in their mass quite well, just not what the absolute masses are.

Having worked at T2K (and indeed posted here from the site in the small hours) I can assure you that neutrinos do not move in a helical pattern. You do see helical patterns in the LHC from charged particles moving in a magnetic field. As superK has no magnets there is no helical motion. Not that that path of a neutrino would be perturbed by a magnet as the neutrino field does not interact with the photon field.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211134
Gives a fairly simple overview of the mathematics of what I have been discussing and derives the above statements in detail. For more rigour and a full field theory approach then I recommend Carlo Giunti's tutorials. I have the book so I don't have links to hand but I am happy to provide specific proofs if necessary.
 
Some questions which I have been unable to derive satisfactory answers:
How does a photomultiplier 'activate the aether'?
Using a telluric current how do I create a muon inside a water chamber? I am unable to find a way to produce a muon/nucleon in isolation with only an electric potential?
Many more but the novelty is wearing off

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #244 on: December 05, 2012, 01:43:41 PM »
Forum user Bowler-

Thank you for your time and effort into attempting to educate us on your point of view.

Its largely over my head, but I can glean enough to not sound like a total miscreant at parties.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #245 on: December 06, 2012, 12:02:58 AM »
You haven't done your homework on Lorentz.

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html


You have not answered anything pertaining to the precise ether (telluric currents) detection performed by Dr. Dayton Miller.

This alone proves that the official dogma/science is ignoring the most important fact re: the beam neutrinos.


A telluric current is not just an electrical current flowing through the Earth: read again the discoveries of Dr. Henry T. Moray.

Or even better read the entire file on telluric currents:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm


You are ignoring the fact that the particles which do make up a telluric current (namely, subquarks) are in fact following a helical path, here is the most precise proof ever (a work copied by Higgs, Gell-Mann and Dirac):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (written by none other than Dr. Stephen Phillips of UCLA)


The same subquarks do make up what we currently call a magnetic field: time-lapse photography, helical paths:

http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf


Here is Tesla himself telling you that neutrinos = cosmic rays = telluric currrents:

Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them.


The particles which do make up a magnetic field move in a helical path.

Subquarks are made up of vortices which follow a helical path.

Telluric currents are made up of subquarks.

All this proved in the works provided in this message.


Therefore, bowler, we have a very simple explanation for the beam neutrinos phenomenon: while shot at a downward angle, the energy input activates the telluric currents which do have various amplitudes/wavelengths.

Aether is activated by any electrical/magnetic source nearby and at Super K we do have some 11,000 photomultipliers.

Here is the activation of aether by sound, the science called cymatics:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Cymatic experiment


More information here on the activation of aether:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm


Please update your knowledge of telluric currents and the precise proofs/experiments which do prove their existence.

?

Major Twang

  • 222
  • Astronomer
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #246 on: December 06, 2012, 01:35:45 AM »
Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them.



Have you not noticed that this bit of text talks about Neutrons, not Neutrinos.  And he's talking about them being faster than light - which is impossible.

He was wrong about Cosmic Rays too.  90% of them are protons, 9% helium nucleii and 1% electrons.  Interestingly - the ratio of protons to helium nucleii is exactly the same as the ratio of hydrogen to helium predicted by the maths of the Big Bang.

Tesla was a genius, but he also had severe mental health issues - feeling unable to enter a building unless he had walked around it 3 times & exhibiting a pathalogical hatred of round objects.  Have you also noticed that a number of Teslas more fantastical experimental claims have never been sucessfully repeated, despite the fact that there are thousands of scientist in his fan club who keep doggedly trying.

Neutrinos DO NOT INTERACT with the electromagnetic force.  That's why they are so difficult to detect.

Telluric currents are ELECTRICITY.  They are caused by the motion of electrons.  Trying to claim that telluric currents are caused by neutrinos is like trying to claim that elephant footprints are caused by mosquitos.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 01:50:25 AM by Major Twang »

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #247 on: December 06, 2012, 06:53:05 AM »
At the risk of sounding belligerent; are you making up sciency sounding words? The post reads like sniffing glue and watching Star Wars. Anyway I'll extract what I can from what is actual physics or at least is using words from actual physics. I assume by 'sub-quark' you are referring to the preon. Again there is a grain of reality here. The Preon was a hypothetical particle that quarks were mode of. The idea was kicking around before I was born but had largely died away by the time I specialized. It does have some nice properties one could see how it could explain the structure of the CKM matrix (a mixing of QM states amongst the quarks) and the fact there are three generations of particles. Unfortunately nature disagreed and the idea fell into decay, also it has become apparent that similar questions arise with other particles which have nothing to do with quarks. The discovery of the Higgs more or less kills the preon model although it's been on life support and essentially forgotten for some time now. There are a number of other rather unappealing properties with preons which are rather technical for here such as the top quark decay time. All that said the LHC has given supersymmetry a couple of big blows recently which will bring a smile to the small but dedicated bunch of preon theorists. The flip side is that the discovery of the Higss is probably a more or less fatal blow to preons, as I've seen them at least.

None of this should take anything away from the fact that the Phillip's paper is sheer crackpottery and is essentially a large ream of verbal diarrhea punctuated by conjuntions and passages probably lifted from undergraduate textbooks. While I agree one shouldn't demand that an author is a Cambridge don, sometimes there is a reason the authors contact address is a flat in Bournemouth.

The reason I didn't comment on the other guy is that I couldn't find any science to comment on. In much the same way you shouldn't ignore someone because they're not famous just because they have a PhD doesn't mean they can't be an idiot, look at me for example.

Cosmic rays are mostly protons - fact. Some may well be neutrons although as neutrons decay after about 15 mins in the neutron's rest frame they can't be coming from that far away. Probably not far from outside the solar system it at all and the solar system isn't full of cosmic ray sources. So that one is easy.

The guy who wrote that aquestionoftime website has made a number of misconceptions about absolute and relative time as well as the structure of the Lorentz transform. All it really is - is a trap for non-physicists looking to learn about relativity. Thanks, for the link I have forwarded it to a colleague who like to set 'spot the error' type questions.

Still its far form clear to me what an electric current in the Earth has to do with all of the above.

I completely agree that just because someone is not a well known name doesn't mean they should be ignored. Einstein is the usual case study here. Similarly an old name shouldn't be believed without question - indeed the young generation often go out after their elders that's how we progress. However where the entire physics community has agreed one something there is usually a good reason for that, particularly when it's often hard to get two physicists to agree on the color of an orange. Never believe something 'just because' but bear in mind sometimes there is a good reason a consensus has been reached.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #248 on: December 06, 2012, 11:54:48 PM »
Faster than light waves (telluric currents) are not impossible, you have not read my previous messages.

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:
http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf


You certainly have not done your homework on neutrons. In fact, Chadwick did not discover anything resembling a neutron.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

Read Tesla's words carefully. He is saying that cosmic rays are made up of particles resembling neutrons; in the official theory, based on Chadwick disastrous experiment, neutrons have no charge; Tesla says that a neutron is made up of much smaller particles, with FRACTIONAL CHARGE.


Discovery of subquarsk/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981 (please read carefully and avoid making statements with no scientific value)


Lorentz committed some of the most catastrophic mistakes ever made in quantum physics, the works provided do indeed prove this thing beyond a shadow of a doubt:

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html



Let us now get back to the discovery of ether (telluric currents) by the extraordinary experiments done by Dr. Dayton Miller.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


This alone is sufficient to dispose of your beam neutrinos thread. Telluric currents are made up of subquarks in a helical path, the entire current itself has a sinusoidal wave pattern, it is such a wave/telluric currents which carried the energy of the T2K experiment 360 meters above the ground at Super K.

Read the entire file on cymatics: the activation of aether by sound/electrical current/magnetism.



The biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips.

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.

A century-old claim by  two early leaders of  the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations  are  found  to be consistent with  facts  of  nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected.  Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of  matter is shown to agree with the
string model.  Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory.  The implication  of  this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal  observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists  currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.


Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.


The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles.  It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.
  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.  If  this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have  compositions and  UPA  populations indicating  that  they consist of  the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of  an element.  This
makes  them more  akin  to what  nuclear physicists  call  "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion  of  two  very  fast-moving  nuclei. Moreover, precognition would  not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry.  If they had used
merely  precognition, they  would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.



A. Besant work was copied word by word by none other than Dirac (antiparicles), Gell-Mann (quarks) and by Higgs himself (higgs boson/field), are you going to call them too crackpots?


EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT AND ISOTOPE PREDICTED WITH 100% ACCURACY. READ AGAIN.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult Chemistry  appeared. 

The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913?


Is this what you call crackpottery bowler, just because it contradicts EVERYTHING you have been taught by the official dogma?

A. Besant showed and proved that atoms are made up of various arrangements of subquarks, they come in two types:



A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.



ARE YOU GOING TO CALL DR. N. KOZYREV AND DR. BRUCE DEPALMA CRACKPOTS, TOO?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY = TELLURIC CURRENTS OF DEXTROROTATORY TYPE

Cosmic rays = telluric currents (certainly not made up of protons, but subquarks)

Throwing Experiments
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:


Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.



No other comments are needed: the most precise proofs (Besant, Dayton Miller, DePalma, Kozyrev) that prove the existence of the telluric currents, a fact ignored by you and "science".

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #249 on: December 07, 2012, 08:21:10 AM »
No other comments are needed: ...

Couldn't this have come about 2600 words earlier? Would have saved me scrolling through 2600 words of nonsense.

?

Major Twang

  • 222
  • Astronomer
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #250 on: December 07, 2012, 09:38:44 AM »
the most precise proofs (Besant, Dayton Miller, DePalma, Kozyrev) that prove the existence of the telluric currents, a fact ignored by you and "science".

Telluric currents are well understood

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

They have a practical application for oil exploration, the mining industry & geophysics.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #251 on: December 08, 2012, 01:53:29 AM »
Your wikipedia source is just the tip of the iceberg on telluric currents.

Please read again the discoveries about telluric currents made by Dr. Moray and Dr. Le Bon:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423019.html#msg1423019

Again, here are the words of Dr. Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



Dr. Bruce DePalma:

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


This ether energy constitutes the telluric currents/cosmic rays discovered by Dr. Dayton Miller in his classic experiments.


There are two types of telluric currrents: dextrorotatory waves (terrrestrial gravity) and laevorotatory waves (which do cause antigravitational effects).



SUBQUARK QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything – the holy grail of modern physics?


Quantum foam, also known as space-time foam, is a concept in quantum physics proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler in 1955 to describe the microscopic sea of bubbling energy-matter. The foam is what space-time would look like if we could zoom in to a scale of 10-33 centimetres (the Planck length). At this microscopic scale, particles of matter appear to be nothing more than standing waves of energy. Wheeler proposed that minute wormholes measuring 10-33 centimetres could exist in the quantum foam, which some physicists theorise could even be hyper-spatial links to other dimensions. The hyper-spatial nature of the quantum foam could account for principles like the transmission of light and the flow of time. Some scientists believe that quantum foam is an incredibly powerful source of zero-point energy, and it has been estimated that one cubic centimetre of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.

So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.



According to Leadbeater these particles are composed of 10 vibrating strings, which are in turn composed of even smaller particles, which are in turn composed of even smaller strings, etc... This suggests that the seemingly incompatible standard model and string theory may in fact be two sides of the same coin.

String theory proposes that everything is composed of incredibly minute strings or loops of energy-matter vibrating in ten (or more) dimensions. Our brains can only comprehend four dimensions – the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height) plus one temporal dimension (time). So according to string theory, six (or more) hidden spatial dimensions must exist beyond our perception. It is interesting to note that the ancient cosmologies of eastern religions are based on seven planes of existence, with our physical plane being the lowest.

According to Leadbeater the fundamental particle shown in Figure 1 is merely the fundamental particle of our physical dimension (plane 1) – for this reason I will refer to it as the 1-atom. 1-atoms are so small that modern science has not yet detected them, but they were theorised back in 1974 by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, who referred to them as "preons". According to Leadbeater, two varieties of 1-atom exist (positive and negative), each with the same basic structure but the spirals spin the other way in the negative variety (see Figure 2). This is due to zero point energy flowing down through the negative atoms and up through the positive atoms.




1-atoms are far from being the ultimate fundamental particle from which everything in the universe is composed. Each 1-atom is composed of ten separate "strings" (closed loops) which are in turn composed of coiled loops of even smaller particles – see figure 3.



1-atoms are the fundamental particles of the physical plane (plane 1), 2-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 2, 3-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 3, etc. According to Leadbeater, each 1-atom is composed of forty nine 2-atoms, each 2-atom is composed of forty nine 3-atoms, each 3-atom is composed of forty nine 4-atoms, etc. The matter of the lower planes is composed of the matter of the higher planes, so all the planes can interpenetrate each other and occupy the same space. Figure 3 shows the number of fundamental atoms from the various planes that make up one fundamental atom of the physical plane.



According to Leadbeater there are actually seven phases of physical matter; and where that ends different kinds of even subtler matter begin. The three lowest phases of physical matter (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) broadly correspond to solid, liquid and gas. The four higher phases of physical matter (1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7) are etheric, and are what science refers to as subatomic particles or dark matter. 1-atoms belong to the 1:7 phase and combine in many different molecular permutations to produce the hundreds of sub-atomic particles and chemical elements known to science.

Figure 5 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom as described by Leadbeater a hundred years ago. The nucleus is composed of six units (in two groups of three), and each unit is composed of three 1-atoms. According to conventional science the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is composed of only three units called quarks.



Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.



Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.

The Higgs Field
The Higgs field is a quantum field that is believed to permeate the entire universe. The theory was proposed by physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s to account for the fact that that particles have mass. Particles of matter that interact with the Higgs field are subject to resistance, which shows itself as mass. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light. The Higgs field has been compared to treacle through which every particle in the universe has to "swim". Small particles can easily move through the Higgs field so they appear to have negligible mass, but large particles create more drag so appear to be heavier.

Leadbeater described something very similar to the Higgs field over 50 years earlier in Occult Chemistry. He explained that an incredibly dense substance, which he called koilon, permeates the entire universe, and that every atom of matter corresponds to an empty bubble in this incredibly dense substance.

When a particle moves, its corresponding bubble must move through the dense koilon and this causes resistance. This resistance manifests as inertia in the particle, and inertia gives the appearance of mass. Large particles correspond to large clusters of bubbles which are subject to greater resistance, giving the appearance of a large mass. Small particles correspond to small clusters of bubbles which are subject to less resistance, giving the appearance of a small mass.


The perfect description of ether (telluric currents): these currents consist of subquarks (both dextrorotatory and laevorotatory).

Dayton Miller, Nikolai Kozyrev, Bruce DePalma, T. Henry Moray, T. Townsend Brown, Nikola Tesla showed and proved their existence beyond any shadow of a doubt.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 01:55:28 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #252 on: December 10, 2012, 03:41:23 AM »
Your wikipedia source is just the tip of the iceberg on telluric currents.

Please read again the discoveries about telluric currents made by Dr. Moray and Dr. Le Bon:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423019.html#msg1423019

Again, here are the words of Dr. Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



Dr. Bruce DePalma:

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


This ether energy constitutes the telluric currents/cosmic rays discovered by Dr. Dayton Miller in his classic experiments.


There are two types of telluric currrents: dextrorotatory waves (terrrestrial gravity) and laevorotatory waves (which do cause antigravitational effects).



SUBQUARK QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything – the holy grail of modern physics?


Quantum foam, also known as space-time foam, is a concept in quantum physics proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler in 1955 to describe the microscopic sea of bubbling energy-matter. The foam is what space-time would look like if we could zoom in to a scale of 10-33 centimetres (the Planck length). At this microscopic scale, particles of matter appear to be nothing more than standing waves of energy. Wheeler proposed that minute wormholes measuring 10-33 centimetres could exist in the quantum foam, which some physicists theorise could even be hyper-spatial links to other dimensions. The hyper-spatial nature of the quantum foam could account for principles like the transmission of light and the flow of time. Some scientists believe that quantum foam is an incredibly powerful source of zero-point energy, and it has been estimated that one cubic centimetre of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.

So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.



According to Leadbeater these particles are composed of 10 vibrating strings, which are in turn composed of even smaller particles, which are in turn composed of even smaller strings, etc... This suggests that the seemingly incompatible standard model and string theory may in fact be two sides of the same coin.

String theory proposes that everything is composed of incredibly minute strings or loops of energy-matter vibrating in ten (or more) dimensions. Our brains can only comprehend four dimensions – the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height) plus one temporal dimension (time). So according to string theory, six (or more) hidden spatial dimensions must exist beyond our perception. It is interesting to note that the ancient cosmologies of eastern religions are based on seven planes of existence, with our physical plane being the lowest.

According to Leadbeater the fundamental particle shown in Figure 1 is merely the fundamental particle of our physical dimension (plane 1) – for this reason I will refer to it as the 1-atom. 1-atoms are so small that modern science has not yet detected them, but they were theorised back in 1974 by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, who referred to them as "preons". According to Leadbeater, two varieties of 1-atom exist (positive and negative), each with the same basic structure but the spirals spin the other way in the negative variety (see Figure 2). This is due to zero point energy flowing down through the negative atoms and up through the positive atoms.




1-atoms are far from being the ultimate fundamental particle from which everything in the universe is composed. Each 1-atom is composed of ten separate "strings" (closed loops) which are in turn composed of coiled loops of even smaller particles – see figure 3.



1-atoms are the fundamental particles of the physical plane (plane 1), 2-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 2, 3-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 3, etc. According to Leadbeater, each 1-atom is composed of forty nine 2-atoms, each 2-atom is composed of forty nine 3-atoms, each 3-atom is composed of forty nine 4-atoms, etc. The matter of the lower planes is composed of the matter of the higher planes, so all the planes can interpenetrate each other and occupy the same space. Figure 3 shows the number of fundamental atoms from the various planes that make up one fundamental atom of the physical plane.



According to Leadbeater there are actually seven phases of physical matter; and where that ends different kinds of even subtler matter begin. The three lowest phases of physical matter (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) broadly correspond to solid, liquid and gas. The four higher phases of physical matter (1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7) are etheric, and are what science refers to as subatomic particles or dark matter. 1-atoms belong to the 1:7 phase and combine in many different molecular permutations to produce the hundreds of sub-atomic particles and chemical elements known to science.

Figure 5 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom as described by Leadbeater a hundred years ago. The nucleus is composed of six units (in two groups of three), and each unit is composed of three 1-atoms. According to conventional science the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is composed of only three units called quarks.



Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.



Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.

The Higgs Field
The Higgs field is a quantum field that is believed to permeate the entire universe. The theory was proposed by physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s to account for the fact that that particles have mass. Particles of matter that interact with the Higgs field are subject to resistance, which shows itself as mass. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light. The Higgs field has been compared to treacle through which every particle in the universe has to "swim". Small particles can easily move through the Higgs field so they appear to have negligible mass, but large particles create more drag so appear to be heavier.

Leadbeater described something very similar to the Higgs field over 50 years earlier in Occult Chemistry. He explained that an incredibly dense substance, which he called koilon, permeates the entire universe, and that every atom of matter corresponds to an empty bubble in this incredibly dense substance.

When a particle moves, its corresponding bubble must move through the dense koilon and this causes resistance. This resistance manifests as inertia in the particle, and inertia gives the appearance of mass. Large particles correspond to large clusters of bubbles which are subject to greater resistance, giving the appearance of a large mass. Small particles correspond to small clusters of bubbles which are subject to less resistance, giving the appearance of a small mass.


The perfect description of ether (telluric currents): these currents consist of subquarks (both dextrorotatory and laevorotatory).

Dayton Miller, Nikolai Kozyrev, Bruce DePalma, T. Henry Moray, T. Townsend Brown, Nikola Tesla showed and proved their existence beyond any shadow of a doubt.

A summary would have been sufficient.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #253 on: December 10, 2012, 04:03:23 AM »

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #254 on: December 11, 2012, 06:23:46 PM »
Can someone explain how is the thread going on?
I mean, I know everybody is writing a lot of stuff, and sandokhan more than everyone, but can someone summarize?
Do neutrinos travel from one side of the earth to another traversing earth or what?