Right, all of these things could be different aspects of a fifth force. And that may include neutrinos as well, which even though they are referred to as particles are both particle-like and wave-like - so it is not clear why they cannot be an aspect of a putative fifth force.
Even if not - the FF would certainly be the kind of "out" that skeptics in the mainstream need to find, to partially justify the immense harm that they have unwittingly done to society since 1989 by delaying all of this - through pathological skepticism. If LANR had been explained by the mid nineties, then oil demand is manageable, we do not covet it for economic growth - and there is probably no Gulf War, right ? ... 'fonly, as they say... Jones _____________________________________________ From: Mark Sturrock said: "If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," And this article from a few weeks ago... which was mentioned on Vortex... http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-atom-smasher-nature.html "There could be some new force beyond the force that we know," said Giovanni Punzi, a physicist with the international research team that is analyzing the data from the US Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. "If it is confirmed, it could point to a whole new world of interactions," he told AFP. While much remains a mystery, researchers agree that this is not the "God Particle," or the Higgs-boson, a hypothetical elementary particle that has long eluded physicists who believe it could explain why objects have mass. "The Higgs-boson is a piece that goes into the puzzle that we already have," said Punzi. "Whereas this is something that goes a little bit beyond that -- a new interaction, a new force." Punzi said the new observation behaves differently than the Higgs-boson, which would be decaying into heavy quarks, or particles. The new discovery "is decaying in normal quarks," Punzi said. "It has different features," he added. "One thing we know for sure -- it is not the Higgs-boson. That is the only thing we know for sure." -Mark _____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles? Curious thing happens when you keep good lab notes over extended periods ... Without getting into details yet, or addressing such niceties as Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus... it is clear that different cosmological cycles can influence activity in subtle ways ... and in not-so-subtle ways. The same may apply to why experiments with nano-materials work better on certain days than others. This is probably NOT a strained metaphor. It may tell us something about the identity of hidden influences. Here is a confirming story from which some of the implications of this post are loosely based (just so you will know it is not moonshine): http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html The time between two full moons is ~ 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes but this is longer than the time it takes the Moon to make one orbit around the Earth with respect to the fixed stars (the sidereal month), which is about two days shorter. This difference is caused by the fact that the Earth-Moon system is orbiting around the Sun at the same time the Moon is orbiting around the Earth. In addition to that, and possibly far more relevant to the experimenter - you have the Sun's rotation- or should I say double rotation. The core of the sun rotates at a different rate than its surface, and it works out to every 33 days. The solar core is the source of solar neutrinos and is more massive. Neutrinos "weakly interact" in principle but not always ... but that is fodder for another grazing. Plus the Earth is closer to the sun during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere (earth's orbit is slightly elongated) and this - along the sun and moon cycles - could affect nuclear reactions that depend, even remotely on a neutrino flux. A few careful researchers, as in the cited article, have noticed that nuclear decay rates vary repeatedly every 33 days -- a period of time that matches the rotational period of the core of the sun. The surface rotates once every 28 days - so surprisingly the rotation rate of the surface of the sun is faster than the core, and yet almost all neutrinos bare believed to come from the core. However, the 28 day cycle can also shows up in other data, but it could be lunar. It is also strange that these cyclical rates, as different as they are in detail, are similar in what humans want to gauge as a "month" but since ancient times have realized is an imprecise value of time. So there are really 3-4 overlapping cycles of about a month, but they can be aligned with each other or not, and over periods of about 11-12 years which is seen in another variety of solar cycle.... And on a related note, the appearance of the "rogue wave" (superwave) seems to be more prevalent when merged and overlapping cycles (heterodyning) which are almost the same, but not quite. What to make of it all for LANR ? Hmmm ... Keep good records of experimental results, as there could be a "menopauses in the data", so to speak ... not to mention solarpauses ... Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
