Recovered: Cymatics

[arc-us]

Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: Cymatics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that I'm looking for agreement, but occasionally in my day-to-day life I sometimes wonder if I'm experiencing a one-hand clapping routine or something. Anyways, has anyone else connected the dots between the spectrum of sound and that of EM? Can't say that I've seen it explored in specifics anywhere in this exact way, but maybe others are aware of those who have.

Seems to me that limiting the EM spectrum to the conventionally recognized range is nothing short of arbitrary and is a short-sighted amputation of perception that tends to make the realm of sound something distinct from the EM/EU continuum.

Has anyone else viewed the cymatics video (see link below)? I have been interested in the work of Hans Jenny since I ran across it a few years ago in my EU journeying. I recently viewed the video and found it completely astounding in its implications for the connection and scalability of plasma physics at the extremely subtle level. Nearly all the observable phenomena we discuss as EU or ... forgive me ... PU* effects are observable in the video based purely on sound frequency generation (as an aside, I'm reminded of the maddening sound effects - the noise generated - that Velikovsky describes in such sources as the Ipuwer papyrus). It is simply astonishing to see these electrical and plasma-like effects emerge right before your eyes using simple frequencies from the spectrum of sound and requiring no electronics other than a sound generator.

You'll see swirling, dynamic "dust devils" and tornado like vortices appear and fade. Anode and cathode cratering effects. Swirling, spiralling, and actual rotating galactic-like formations, current flows, rotating masses that look like nebulae and flowing plasma-like streams, simultaneous bi-directionally integrated flows, rising mountains and mountain ranges that then "melt" away (sound famililar?), clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneous rotations of masses at the same frequency; and some that sequentially change rotational direction as the frequency changes. On and on. Oh yes, there was even an appearance of a skeletal "backbone" structure resembling Peratt's work and petroglyphs.

For those truly prepared to "see," it could provide profound revelation (IMO, of course).

One other thought I am reminded of in this context is, years ago, when I was using a large 21-inch CRT computer monitor I would notice from time-to-time that when I would ... umm ... sing or make some other annoyingly resonant sound - if I struck just the right tone and voice intensity - my voice affected the CRT screen. It would display isolated, more or less circular, moire patterns. The patterns would sorta dance as I modulated the vocal tone slightly up or down in frequency. If any of you still have a CRT monitor or CRT television set you can try this for yourself. You'll have to experiment with the distance from the screen - I think I was at normal viewing distance from chair to desk, say within a couple of feet. You'll also need to vary the pitch and intensity until you get a resonant "sweet spot". I think just singing "ah-h-h-h-h" or "aw-w-w-w-w" (open-mouthed and from the diaphragm, or even the "middle or lower 'dan tien'" for any martial art practitioners out there, if you can manage it) would do it. But you do have to be pretty loud and unconstrained about it so don't blame me if you have thin walls and get complaints from neighbors, your wife, or various and sundry dogs howling .

http://www.cymaticsource.com/cymaticsvideos.html

http://www.cymaticsource.com/

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

* Plasma Universe

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:26 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting stuff. Can we link that with the recent hexagon that appeared at Saturn's (soutern?) pole?

(originally posted by user "vk78"

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:52 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vk78 wrote:
Very interesting stuff. Can we link that with the recent hexagon that appeared at Saturn's (soutern?) pole?

Glad you brought that up. Cymatics (sound) definitely produce such patterns. But also, does low frequency rotation of water - check this out, if you haven't seen it already:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/ ... 15-17.html Don't know how long this link will stay valid since they're pretty protective of their content

Here's the full magilla as a pdf and with much better photos and explanation of the setup (from a different source than Nature, but again don't know how long it will stay valid so some may want to save to disk):

Polygons On a Rotating Fluid Surface

Again, I have a viewpoint that our modern vision of science with its so many varied specialists compartmented and cut off from one another (totally against the ancient tradition of integrative learning) gives us an extremely myopic and artificial view of our universe.

Regards,
Arc-us

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: Singing The Universe Electric

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singing The Universe Electric

These 4 sample videos are from the Cymatics video (found them by searching You Tube for "cymatics"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWadDtIFPNs (the "monkey nuts" in this one is a little suggestive of grey matter?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3csi-2Hrzhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bAmjRK9wBA

This is demonstrative of just one variety of patterning seen, and are done with lycopodium powder. There are other frames that demonstrate the effect on iron filings, liquid, and heated liquid that is allowed to cool under vibration. Just fascinating stuff.

EDIT: Found this 5 minute clip montage - this is all from the Cymatics video - the music supplied with it is NOT but was added by the uploader. The original sound is as with the samples above. This one shows effects with liquids, iron filings (recall the statement - I forget the source off hand - that the mountains "skipped like lambs" or words to that effect? SEE it here), and powder. The entire Cymatics video (I think it's in 2 parts, at least mine is) is about 60 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dliI63ERpw

EDIT 051407: Another, 12 1/2 minute, edited montage from the original Cymatics video. Again, music added by uploader. The original video has no music, just the audio tones generating the effects along with documentary type monologue/description.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... q=cymatics

Don't know what this one is from but the similarity to cell division is fascinating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VB3VfAoEU0

Interesting Cladni Plate demo with a violin string - the cellular structure is notable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EprMFajNzfQ

I didn't have time to view all the search results and only selected a few that looked familiar.

_________________

I have to tell you, there was a personal revelation in all this when I first watched the cymatics video. I realized that all these familiar shapes and structures were occurring under the influence and confluence of sound (to me a subtle extension of the same EM spectrum), and that it was so obviously demonstrative of the current, active universe. But what struck me profoundly was my realization that *I* was part of this "chorus" or orchestration. *I* had a voice in its dynamic. Gave a whole new meaning for me of "I Sing The Body Electric." For any who have read my other, longer ramblings I think you'll grasp what I mean by "my voice."

Not only is the universe full of background radiation in terms of the higher frequency EM vibrations, it is as equally full of background sound and within that background will be found ALL of our voices singing it into being.

My Very Best Regards,
Arc-us

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:43 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a link from near the end of the Wikipedia article on Cymatics, "Video of Cymatics of salt grains on vibrating square metal plate":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:04 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great observations and links (particularly about destabilizing the CRT. I could expand on the sounds my computers' electronics have been making).

However -- sorry if I am totally clueless here -- what kind of continuous spectrum would that be (I'm asking without irony), as the wave medium appears to be different? Or, at least, operating on a different "layer"?

(OP "Enan Gamre")

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enan Gamre wrote:
<snip>
However -- sorry if I am totally clueless here -- what kind of continuous spectrum would that be (I'm asking without irony), as the wave medium appears to be different? Or, at least, operating on a different "layer"?

Forgive me if I"m not very clear about this, it's an intuitive "feeling" I've carried for some while and is still not very graspable to me as a concept translatable to words, yet. And I'm not particularly well versed when it comes to complex, technical description. I can only give it a shot. I may have to come back to this to better express what I'm getting at. But forcing into specific words usually helps clarify. Maybe someone else who has a similar intuitive feel for what I'm getting at can lend a more steady hand.

Yes, the wave medium may be contextually different, varying in quality, but the manifestation of wave patterning is consistent, even from one scientific discipline to another. I suspect that our consciousness has been too singularly focused on the differentiation of these various phenomenological specialties and that the time is right to now see that while, yes, they manifest at varying levels of density, medium, and so forth, but that they are quite united by a commonly held continuum of ... searching for a word or phrase ... I dunno ... gradation of energy pattern?

Take the gradation from plasma state EM ---> vacuum tube or CRT EM ---> solid state EM (soild state circuitry) ---> electrochemical state EM (e.g. wet cell, dry cell batteries). Different media, same EM phenomena.

Similarly, states of matter, plasma ---> gases ---> liquids ---> solids. But, essentially, all commonly share the same basic energy patterns, only differently expressed depending on the medium. We don't completely disassociate manifestation in the solid state from manifestation in the plasma state - or we shouldn't - but we view them as a unified continuum of states of energy manifestation.

I'm saying, or trying to anyways, that we should be viewing the manifestation of sound as part of the same continuum of state that EM (as higher rates of vibration) exists within. Yes, we conventionally understand and agree that sound is a longitudinal energy wave proprogated through a medium of gaseous "air," dependent upon the EDIT: longitudinal compression and expansion oscillation of the composite atoms and molecules that constitute the medium.

It's a little stickier for the concept of EM. For one, there's the controversy over the existence of the aether as a medium. Personally, I'm of the camp that says a wave propagation is impossible without such a medium, by whatever name. Otherwise, what the blazes is "waving"? That's the idea of continuum. So I would see EDIT: EM radiation as probably a longitudinal energy wave propagated through a medium of aetheric "air," dependent upon the longitudinal compression and expansion oscillation of the composite atoms and molecules that constitute the medium. And the magnetic component as the transverse aspect of the same energy wave, or something along that line.

And perhaps an electrical discharge, such as a ligtning or thunder bolt is somewhat analagous to the sound "discharge" or medium breakdown of a sonic boom produced by an object exceeding the atmospheric speed of sound?

I would also say, here, that the aether is not merely an "outer" spatial phenomenon but that it permeates *all* space including that within and throughout what we commonly experience as our "air" and atmosphere at all stratifications. And it's this simultaneous co-existence of the finer oscillations of the "aether" manifesting as part and parcel of the same medium which, around Earth, is also manifesting right along with it as the grosser oscillation known as air, that unite the concepts and provide the continuum (continuity) of sound with EM. In other words, the medium is not homogenous (how boring) in the sense of sound waves being distinctly disrelated and disassociated from other phenomenogical waves such as found within the EM range, so that given media such as this near the surface of Earth supports multiple simultaneous but RELATED phenomena. Dang, maybe that's all I needed to say, in a nutshell?

But are there organisms tuned to "hear" the frequencies in the range of EM? I suggest there may be. Offhand, the work of Royal Rife comes to mind. Or how about the "translation" into sound waves of 60hz oscillation of EM energy as the "buzzing" around power line transformers? Yeah, but, how about the sound of a slamming car door? Well, the car door, the car, the intervening space and air, your ears, your brain, your body - all these are also composed of varying EM oscillations of varying density, intensity, and so on. Where do you draw the lines of separation and say that one thing or another does NOT belong, is disrelated, to the over all continuum of manifestation, of what IS?

Again, I apologize for my lack of coherence but, as I said, this is still coalescing for me so my logic is undoubtedly full of holes. I hope to come back to this in the succeeding hours or days with a better grasp of what I'm trying to say. I know I'm really stretching the limits of my competence so, any critics out there ... have mercy, at least for now.

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: Critic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.Thornhill says the same thing about waves, that they must be waves of something. For him that something is a sea of neutrinos that fills the universe. The aether particles are neutrinos, which are collapsed atomic particles.
.Waves can move through atoms and molecules to produce sounds etc, while waves passing through aether particles [neutrinos?] produce electromagnetic radiation.
.Steven Rado in his aethrokinematics material uses a formula involving sound waves in steel to find the average distance between iron atoms in a steel beam. He uses the same formula involving the highest known EM frequency to determine the average distance between aether particles. He found that aether particles are about 6 million times closer together than are iron atoms in steel.
.Rado explained, I think, that all waves are combinations of longitudinal and transverse waves, so the normal definitions are faulty. His website is http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/. I have his CD and hope to understand it thoroughly before long.

(OP "lk")

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enan Gamre wrote:
<snip>what kind of continuous spectrum would that be (I'm asking without irony), as the wave medium appears to be different? Or, at least, operating on a different "layer"?

Maybe lk's response jarred something loose (no snide comments, please ) or maybe it was taking a break to hand-water the lawn, or both, but a simplicity just struck me.

The EM spectrum is usually described as frequency and wavelength of oscillation. So, for the sake of bringing sound into the fold as it were, why not take sound out of the separate decibel scale and integrate it into the EM spectrum where I say it rightfully belongs? Just extend down from the short wave, long wave, or wherever the thing leaves off on down to the Khz levels and corresponding wavelengths?

Obviously, I'm not an engineer or scientist, so would there be some problem with this integration onto the same scale? A perceived problem of mechanics or something, seeing that sound seems to be treated as a purely longitudinal mechanical phenomenon (the medium and all) vs EM as some sort of elitist physics phenomenon outside the reach of lowly mechanics because of transverse relationships in a vacuum void of medium (hmph, not true if the aether exists, as many maintain it must).

If the standard measurement of the speed of sound is taken at sea level then couldn't you just correlate it with corresponding measurements of EM at sea level in replicated atmospheric conditions and not requiring a vacuum? But both the sound and EM appropriately shielded or whatever.

If this type of correlation is impossible, please steer me straight. If the concept is more or less sound (pun intended) then what would the missing link be to correlate them if not the above?

Okay, I'm way beyond any pretense of competency at this point so I'm bailing for now.

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, @rc-us and lk, for the great ideas and explanations. I like the words "energy patterns". They describe certain similarities across phenomena in an inspiring way (maybe even a meta-wave of sorts). However, it still seems to me more a "spectrum of spectrums", maybe a spiraling divergence of mediums (see below), and not necessarily a single spectrum.

After reading your replies, when I was looking at an EM spectrum diagram (this one), thinking about where sound wave frequencies, wavelengths and energies would fit, I suddenly had this exciting idea about the changing nature of the "basic medium", "spiraling onto itself" and becoming matter with decreasing frequencies . Not that I think of it as being more than another cool crazy idea for my personal use -- a certain play on the "layers of mediums" or "the permeating aether" ideas.

If you consider devices like an audio speaker, or human senses, they are like cross-dimensional shortcuts, channeling energy between disconnected layers/levels of mediums and frequencies.

One simple argument against the sound-EM spectrum would be the overlap of the sound wave frequencies with Extremely low freq. radio waves. Accidentaly, Google just reminded me of this page, when I've been trying to quickly improve my quite lacking knowledge of the relevant basics

(OP "Enan Gamre")

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enan Gamre wrote:

After reading your replies, when I was looking at an EM spectrum diagram (this one), thinking about where sound wave frequencies, wavelengths and energies would fit, I suddenly had this exciting idea about the changing nature of the "basic medium", "spiraling onto itself" and becoming matter with decreasing frequencies . Not that I think of it as being more than another cool crazy idea for my personal use -- a certain play on the "layers of mediums" or "the permeating aether" ideas.

YES! The d*** thing is full of these spiralling critters. The complex wave interactions (interference patterns of summation and cancellation, vortexes within vortexes - or is it vorticii - and so on, of all these levels do relate and depend on one another to give us exactly WHAT IS. Similiarly to what you have just expressed, I just know "it" to be so but I lack the technical expertise and vocabular to express what I envision - especially since my own vision is not exactly clear about "it."

So it's really exciting to me to hear spontaneous ideas like you've just mentioned because, in what exact way I don't know, but somehow it ... pushes it along. So that someday, somebody's gonna come along who does have the expertise to write the d*** book about it!

If you consider devices like an audio speaker, or human senses, they are like cross-dimensional shortcuts, channeling energy between disconnected layers/levels of mediums and frequencies.

One simple argument against the sound-EM spectrum would be the overlap of the sound wave frequencies with Extremely low freq. radio waves. Accidentaly, Google just reminded me of this page, when I've been trying to quickly improve my quite lacking knowledge of the relevant basics

I'll have to check out your reference. But you make a very valid point. But I'm not sure it invalidates the "theory," and if it's like everything else I seem to encounter is highly susceptible to misinterpretation. But it makes me wonder if there are not other, similar areas, or zones, of overlap and might that be significant in terms of where states of matter interface and evolve/devolve to adjacent states. Like maybe some kind of harmonics transition "zone." I don't think I put that very well but maybe you can read between the lines and get the gist of what I mean even if I don't know how to say it.

EDIT:053107: Transduction. I don't know why I didn't think of this term before. There would seem to be a natural transducer relationship in translating patterning, via resonance, across seemingly disparate media and states of being (plasma, gas, liquid, solid, and other likely as yet undetected states).

Misinterpretation of observation is a sorely overlooked and extremely common "fault" in the reasoning capacity of our minds. That why I think it's important to have a truly open mind and an innate willingness to be wrong and backtrack if necessary. Anyways, thanks for sharing your ideas and further info!

Best,
Arc-us

[arc-us]

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thought, Enan. Or lk, or anyone who'll listen to my inanities.

Maybe the way science has structured and is teaching the spectrum is fundamentally flawed. Maybe we need a new concept of patterned relationship than merely measurement of frequency and length? Or need to add a heretofore unperceived relation. But now I'm really talking through my hat and am clueless right now as to what that factor(s) might be, if so.

And I was gonna say something else but forgot what it was!

Ah, just remembered as I was about to hit <submit>. Wanted to ask if either of you had viewed the Cymatics clips and if so, any other thoughts?

[arc-us]

Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe the way science has structured and is teaching the spectrum is fundamentally flawed.

Personally I was hoping that quantum physics would "install" a huge paradigm shift in minds of scientists, a paradigm shift that tells us that things are not quite as they seem to be. Not that quantum physics is the ultimate tool of science (because it is flawed in many points), but the paradigm shift that it carries.

I blame linguistics for the flaws in modern science. People tend to equate words with the phenomena the words describe, and that is wrong.

The specific linguistics used in popular articles, presenting theories and hypotheses as FACTS, simply by omitting some crucial keywords like "it is thought that" instead of "it is".

"The star observed here IS a black hole..." instead "The star observed here IS THOUGHT TO BE a black hole...".

Those tiny differences can, cumulatively, mean huge difference in the way people observe scientific hypotheses masqueraded as facts. Many TPODs are pointing this out, but unfortunately ordinary Joe or Jane don't know what "linguistics" is, let alone perceive the subtle but crucial "viruses" in modern programing (via science articles) of popular thought.

Wanted to ask if either of you had viewed the Cymatics clips and if so, any other thoughts?

I have a far-fetched theory. Take that first video for example, the powder was rotating and even sported two spirals!!! It made me think that entire universe is not only electric, but that electric force, as fundamental force is the ONLY force in the Universe. That "gravity", strong and weak (electro-weak!) nuclear are just a patterns or forms of electricity.

The "aether" ("Higgs field", for those who dislike "aether") bubbles and resonates in giant orchestra of vibrations caused by massive flows of electricity (Birkeland currents, for instance). The result of resonances are clusters of electromagnetic scalar waves that we perceive as matter.

I really, really hope that the upcoming Grand Hadron Collider experiment will show us some most fundamental principles of the Universe, and that electricity will pop out as the "Grand Architect" of all that Is.

(OP "vk78")

[arc-us]

Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Cymatics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nearly all the observable phenomena we discuss as EU or ... forgive me ... PU* effects

* Plasma Universe

Perhaps PC* (Plasma Cosmology) would be the preferred term? ;o]

Just a thought. Have generally heard it referred to as such... Fewer bad connotation in the abbreviation. Heh.

~Michael

OP "mgmirkin"

[arc-us]

Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: Cymatics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that I'm looking for agreement, but occasionally in my day-to-day life I sometimes wonder if I'm experiencing a one-hand clapping routine or something. Anyways, has anyone else connected the dots between the spectrum of sound and that of EM? Can't say that I've seen it explored in specifics anywhere in this exact way, but maybe others are aware of those who have.

Seems to me that limiting the EM spectrum to the conventionally recognized range is nothing short of arbitrary and is a short-sighted amputation of perception that tends to make the realm of sound something distinct from the EM/EU continuum.

I guess I'm not quite following here. My understanding is that sound an E/M (light) waves are wholly different. IE, sound is a mechanical interaction between various atoms/molecules, whereas light, or the electromagnetic spectrum is just that: electromagnetic (whatever physical process that actually is), rather than collisional.

So, maybe I'm not understanding quite yet? Waves themselves have characteristics: frequency, amplitude, etc. Basically measures of speed of oscillation and whatnot. But the method of delivery is generally different, yeah?

IE, light can be transmitted through a classical "vacuum," whereas since there is "nothing" in the vacuum, sound cannot propagate in it. Right? (afterhtought: but what if the [vacuum] 'sea of nothing' is actually a 'sea of something': neutrinos, as Thornhill suggests?)

To me it seems a bit like mixing apples and oranges, if one says that sound and light should all be lumped together? (afterthought: unless we're saying their either all-collisional, or all-EM...)

Now, granted, I agree with Thornhill that for light to propagate, there must be "something" for light to propagate "in/through." However, what that "something" is I'm not sure. Thornhill says there may be a neutrino-aether. Maybe that's it, maybe it's not. But the differences in interaction seem to separate sound from EM in terms of science-y theories of "how things work"...

Now, another thought pops into my head... I guess I could see a unification , in some regard, IF we assume the neutrino-aether position. IE, particles are made up of neutrinos? (Or was it that neutrinos were collapsed/annihilated antiparticles? I forget.)

Anyway, if neutrinos are the "basic stuff" composing reality (the most-collapsed form of matter), I wonder if we're somehow saying then that neutrinos are tightly packed together into a neutrino-aether. Or do neutrinos have a high degree of mobility, and low-collision rate? IF they're packed together with high collision rates, then they could be basially treated as a super-collisional substance (neutrino-aether), where waves propagate easily through them. And perhaps it's simply the oscillation or waving of the neutrino-aether that we view as "light," whereas sounds is only collisions of much larger/heavier particles (more loosely packed, less collisional)?

IF we were to then say that neutrinos are "matter" (albeit most-highly collapsed matter?), AND other particles are also "matter" (albeit much more massive/energetic and lower density?), then I'd think that we could treat them BOTH the same way as collisional interactors. However, when considering more massive particles with a lower number of collisions, perhaps that's how we get different substances differing sound wave-conductivity? Now, granted, there would have to be other information relating to how well light waves pass through different materials (refractive index?)... In that way, perhaps, we could unify light and sound as collisional entities, albeit in different media. Might also solve that pesky [light] wave/particle duality thing in some roundabout way?

But I don't have enough science know-how to really know if what I just said makes any sense...?

I'm just thinking then that perhaps the ears and eyes are differently adapted to sense the same things but on different levels? IE, ears aregeared toward getting at waves of more massive particles with lower density, whereas the eyes are geared toward catching waves (from a specific part of the spectrum) in a medium of much less massive particles, but which are much more dense?

Being silly, I also briefly wondered if that's why some people who drop 'acid' SEE sounds, and HEAR colors/images... Or is that just some weird chemical processing in the brain. Probably the latter, since it wouldn't convert the physical receptors (ears and eyes) obtaining input into each other... Yeah, must just be a neurochemical interaction and/or mis-routing or mis-processing issue with LSD. Was a funny thought for a second, though... ;o]

Anyway... Yeah, I've rambled long enough... Similar collisional-ness, just on different scales, with particles in differing states? Wonder how that works with Bose-Einstein Condensate (super-cooled near-absolute-zero matter)? Are they simply observing the neutrino-aether? And what of the inherent "spin"/"vortices" detected in Bose-Einstein Condensate? Wonder if that's simply electrical interaction on the neutrino level? Similar to neutrino-level Birkeland Current Vortexes? *wink*

Cheers
~Michael

Last edited by mgmirkin on Mon May 14, 2007 11:51 am; edited 3 times in total

OP "mgmirkin"