Big brother http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles
On Monday, November 19, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: > Hi - I’m confused by your references. These two citations appear to be > incompatible. The Berkeley paper suggests neutrinos and dark matter are > identical or else neutrinos are an energetic subset of dark matter. > However, neutrinos cannot “orbit” anything since they have no charge or > magnetic susceptibility and only miniscule mass. Presumably, they move in a > near straight line at c. most of the time.**** > > ** ** > > How can a massive “particle” be composed of nearly mass-less neutrinos, > and how could they orbit anything or appear to have a very large collective > mass? **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');>] > *Sent:* Monday, November 19, 2012 9:04 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A clue about Storms' mystery radiation?**** > > ** ** > > Jones,**** > > ** ** > > I believe the Elliptical CMEs you see on the sun are made up of orbiting > dark matter around the nucleus of the sun, which is also dark matter. They > trigger beta decay in their surroundings, breaking up the hydrogen into > protons, electrons and creating neutrinos. The elliptical CME arc at the > sun is the same orbital arc the particles create on Earth while orbiting > and creating low pressure systems in the atmosphere and beta decay in the > Earth. Hurricane Sandy was an orbiting particle with a mass of approx > 1x10e17 kg. Its beta decay triggered the large sinkhole in the Erie Canal > as did Hurricane Isaac particle and the Bayou Corne sinkhole.**** > > ** ** > > http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hdm.html**** > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4165**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > **** > > > This story from Purdue is of interest for several > unexplained energy phenomenon, including LENR and the recent disclosure of > Ed Storms. That disclosure is suggestive a hidden kind of radiation which > accelerates nuclear decay rates. > > http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q3/new-system-could-predict-sol > ar-flares,-give-advance-warning.html<http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q3/new-system-could-predict-sol%0d%0aar-flares,-give-advance-warning.html> > A known variety of radiation which can alter decay rates is > neutrinos, except for the huge problem that neutrinos should not be > detected > or absorbed in anywhere close to the needed amount. > > The undefined radiation is associated with solar flares but > precedes the flare. However, since neutrinos are always present in a > massive > flux that is relatively independent of flares, but would not be absorbed in > anything like the proportions which are required to alter decay- does this > finding not specifically suggest a new kind of radiation which renders > neutrinos more active (absorbable)? > I think that it does suggest this or something similar, but > the University Researchers involved will not go that far. (as Mel Brooks > sez: we have to protect our phony baloney jobs). > To me, this finding suggests that the standard neutrino > flux, which is a given, can be modulated or altered somehow, so as to be > absorbed at many or orders of magnitude higher rates, when the mystery > radiation is present (compared to normal). That radiation can be produced > in > LENR apparently, as well as in the solar corona. (note: the flare is a > corona feature, which is a bit different than a solar feature). > In short, this mystery radiation would opera >
