Ant Sinclair

Mike the links below are to former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, He definately believes we are being observed! Is He a Fruit cake (cherry & walnut) or telling the truth? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10560418/Former-Canadian-defence-minister-Aliens-among-us.html

The link below is an article including a video with the French Foreign Minister with John Kerry and is from last May. In the video He is saying We have 500 days to avoid Climate Chaos, What could He be meaning as regards Climate Change? 500 days from then takes Us to September this year! http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/french-foreign-minister-we-have-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos

Cherry & Walnut, All made with Organic, No Monsanto GMO Ingredients, I'll ask My Sis for the recipie as Hers taste fantastic! !!!

It appears Iam not at "full-speed" with the workings of Science Forums SwansonT and would never deliberately go off-topic or violate its' rules. If You feel this Post I made has gone off-topic please feel free to re-post it where ever is suitable to be further discussed.

Iam beginning to think that there could be a quadrupole associated with Earth, if You look at the attached drawing showing the earth and its' inner core, the molten outer core around the solid inner Iron core is non-magnetic and acting like a fluidic bearing. The Earths' Crust being one third Iron then too is magnetised, so the crusts magnetic north would line up with the inner iron cores magnetic south. Could the inner solid Iron core be driven in an opposite direction to the crust be by a Universal energy flow and the crusts rotation be driven by the suns magnetic fields direction?

Can anybody point Me to material that may lead Me to finding information on the last question on this thread, as I have searched but found nothing of relevance to date.

Thanks Janus for Your reply, if say the Earth did swing from 23.5° to 0° would its' magnetic field follow in any way or would it stay where it was?

Thanks for replying John, the reason I asked the question( and now see I should have been more precise ) is that I was wondering if Our planets magnetic field, if it were "up-right", would it have more "drag" on it due to Our stars magnetic field crossing its path so to speak?, possibly lengthening Our day slightly.

I don't know if this has been asked before, but if the Earth didn't have an inclination of 23.5° would our day length be any longer?

Radioactive Isotopes & Atomic “Wobble” Lower Mass Radioactive Isotopes It is beginning to look like the isotopes that are radio-active but still have relatively long half-lifes are more “balanced” with extra bond-gluons “acting” in pairs. He5 & He6 like H3-ve indicates to the mechanism of radiation and decay and possibly the mechanism of half-life duration; He4 AMU of 4.002602 - Stable He5 AMU of 5.0122 - 2e-21 seconds He6 AMU of 6.018886 - 0.807 seconds He4 is obviously stable which takes us to He5, why does He5 have such a very small decay time relative to He6?, I believe the reason to be that even though He6 is unstable, the decay time is lengthened due to 2 extra bond-gluons in opposite triceims of the 4 triceims making up the He molecule and giving it more “balance”. This “extra balance” will hopefully lead to the mechanism of half-life durations. Why would 3H-ve only have a half-life of 12.33 years and Carbon 14 have a half-life of 5730 years? Could it be because of the “Balance” within the nucleus is less “balanced” due to only 1 bond-gluon? Is it the fact that there are 2 extra bond-gluons symetrically opposite within the nucleus of C14 that makes it “more” stable? Looking at further lists of radioactive/unstable isotopes, it seems that isotopes with odd numbered AMUs are far more frequently more unstable. Moving away from lower mass radio-isotopes briefly to a heavier molecules the first Silver; Ag 107 which say for now has an energy mass of 0.90509 giving it a “real” AMU of 106 and so it should be stable. Ag 108 which after removing energy mass leaves an AMU of 107 and so it should be un-stable. Ag 109 again after removing the energy mass has a “real” AMU of 108 and again it should be stable. Now looking briefly at a few isotopes of Uranium; Uranium 236 (ECM – U234), Energy Mass of 2.045563 and a half life of 23.42e6 years Uranium 237 (ECM – U235), Energy Mass of 2.048725 and a half life of 6.75 days Uranium 238 (ECM – U236), Energy Mass of 2.050785 and a half life of 4.468e9 years Uranium 239 (ECM – U 237), Energy Mass of 2.054290 and a half life of 23.5 minutes It does appear that radio-isotopes that have extra bond-gluons in “pairs” have longer half-lifes and should have less of an “Atomic Wobble”, again these “Wobbles” should give some nuclear signal proportional to the frequency in the triceim phases. ECM – Energy Constants Model Please note that the Energy Constants Catalogue of Atomic Structure is only around 20% compiled to date, and as such the above information is a guide to give an insight to as to the work in progress! This thread will be going into slumber now until the catalogue is progressed substantially.

Amazing! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150212141449.htm

After speaking to a couple of the fine gentleman that regularly partake on this forum I realise that these are not simple calculations, more learning ahead and possibly seeking a different approach to finding the answers I sought when I started this particular thread on magnetic fields. Thanks again to Yourself, Mordred, Mike and Strange for taking the time to reply!

The Stern-Gerlach experiment was an interesting read SwansonT so thank You for the link. If then say that neutrinos are found to have a very small magnetic-moment of say a round figure of 10 microB, could it be calculated what field strength would be required to "keep" these neutrinos out at, for want of a better description "at a geo-stationary orbit" of 13.8BLY from the magnetic sources centre? And then could the full strength be calculated for this source and also at certain distances from source with a particular distance in mind of 800 million light years?

If these magnetic-moments were to be confirmed, would the neutrinos be affected by a magnetic field, and if they were affected, could this magnetic field influence their "flight" "path"? Thanks again SwansonT for Your input.

Thanks for Your reply Strange, below is an excerpt from wikipedia. Could You suggest some "not so technical" reading on magnetic moments etc and their inter-actions or lack of with regards to magnetic fields? The existence of a neutrino mass strongly suggests the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment[16] of the order of 10−19 μB, allowing the possibility that neutrinos may interact electromagnetically as well.

Thanks again SwansonT for replying, would the electron-neutrino also be affected?

Thanks for the input Mike, taken on-board.

Thank You also SwansonT for Your reply, I see from the reply that I need to read up more on photons and so My question may have been better worded asking what would be the particle of smallest known mass influenced by magnetic fields instead of the photon?

Thank You Mordred for the reply. The next question in relation to this is, what would the minimum field strength have to be to "just" cause an interaction with the lowest energy photon at 13.8BLY?, and if this is known could the magnetic field sources full strength at source be calculated?

If an extremely powerful electro-magnet is switched on, how quickly would it's most distant field of reach be active?, with say a magnet that could reach 13.8BLY?

Your not being ganged up on even if it feels like it to You. There are so many intelligent eyes being cast upon the threads on this forum including the experts that generously give their own time to help students/laymen and potential theorists alike. Even though You said You never even finished college Your words on this thread show that You're intelligent and as such if You had cared to look at other threads You would have realised this would be no Easy-Ride. Please take their advice and their information forward positively and learn from it like others do.

Your correct SwansonT, like many folk who visit/take part on this forum Iam still learning (with mountains of knowledge ahead of Me), and that the particles I have been calling quarks are not quarks, quarks are a selection of the sub-atomic particles that Murray Gelmann first coined a name for. Your Post got Me thinking and if I were to tag these particles would probably tag them Tri-Ceim(s), ancient gaelic for three (Tri) and Ceim (pass/phase). I have been working on a catalogue of how the model describes/shows elements and molecules and how Hydrogen unlocks/shows a certain characteristic about dirac fields with relation to metals. This is a WIP and this catalogue is months away (probably longer). Along in this catalogue will be many of the models predictions.

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=bill%20gates%20speech%20on%20population%20control&sm=3 Above is a link to Bill Gates speech on population control where He's saying that He would like to see the population brought down to less than a billion preferably 500 million!!! !

Thanks for the post and links Mordred (more brain pain lol), Mordred I have looked but with having a very limited physicists vocabulary are probably not using the correct search string, does He have a pulsing property different to other elements as the model would suggest?

Thanks for Your post Mike which kind of leads to the next post as regards Atomic Mechanisms are concerned, this time The Mechanism of Radiation and Decay; Isotopes of H The model appears to indicate there are five isotopes of Hydrogen; H, H2, 2H, 3H(3H-ve) & 3He(3H+ve). H consisting of one quark and one positive bond-gluon. H2(single phase bond) consisting of two quarks, one positive bond-gluon & one negative bond-gluon. 2H(double phase bond) consisting of two quarks, one positive bond-gluon & one negative bond-gluon. 3H-ve(triple phase bond) consisting of three quarks, one positive bond-gluon & two negative bond-gluons. 3H+ve( triple phase bond) consisting of three quarks, two positive bond-gluons & one negative bond-gluon. Why is 3H-ve(3H) radioactive and 3H+ve(3He) is not? Looking at the 3H-ve figure the two negative bond gluons rotating clockwise and the positive bond gluon rotating anti-clockwise, the two negative bond gluons are nearest each other in positions marked by arrows. As the negative bond gluons begin to get nearest each other are the strong forces acting on something?, could these strong forces possibly be “sqeezing” the “ether” and ejecting “compressed”, possibly “condensed” energy outwards from the “areas” of compression? Why doesn't 3H+ve behave like 3H-ve?, what does this say about negative bond gluons and the “ether”? Assuming the two negative strong forces' fields are “bumping” each other there should be some accompanying nuclear signal proportional to the frequency in the quark phases.