Mass, Radius, Circumference, Wavelength, and Energy Table

.


Please consider another attempt at an EM table. It shows the stable particles between the IR photon and ‘?’. I thought Miles had mentioned a possible particle 1820.56* larger than the proton, I haven't found it yet.  

There are a few slightly varying numbers over several papers, for example, “our mass quantum is 1.00E-24” yet here it is 7.13E-25, close enough I suppose, give or take an assumption or spin or two. Sorry, that didn't make sense; putting the data in table form helps me. Is the Bphoton radius just 1/4th that of the IR photon shown here? How small is the smallest photon? Redefining the Photon and why it is going c (updated) http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf seems the most current/best source for the particle’s physical properties. Note, frequency i.e. 1.0E-13(/s) is not used, for good reasons.

* Enjoying reviews of 1820.56, a fine penance.  
.

Perhaps the larger "?" is this:

http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Short%20Range%20Electron%20Attractive%20Force.pdf

Could those clustering electrons be the neutral ones? Don't you call them nectrons?

.
Hi Cr6. “?” should be a stable, A-spin type particle, 1821 times larger than the proton. Ken shoulders describes clusters of up to 100 billion (or more) electrons. How can a cluster of A particles (electrons) be described as a new A particle?

We live in a baryonic world. Everything around us, including ourselves are made of “atoms”, primarily stable protons and neutrons. The discovery of electrons, along with their charge carrying capacity and EM behavior indicated the need for improved physics. Upon closer review, it appears the universe would be better described as mostly plasma – high energy ions, separated yet balanced with even more energetic electrons.

This makes sense given the charge field. All the matter we see is in equilibrium with constantly recycling charge. It is stable - or not - depending on its local charge field intensities. Put paper in a fire and see how the fire’s charge intensity completely alters otherwise perfectly stable matter.

As large clouds of moisture laden air begin to loose rain, we can see how rapidly moving water through the sky can strip atmospheric gases of some number of electrons/positrons. The increased charge flow through the ionized gases can create a sustainable ongoing energy transformation – a storm - a sort of atmospheric fire. Leptonic instead of baryonic.

That’s how I see Ken Shoulders. He’s describing mass/charge behavior at the electron level. He could see the electrons emerge from the anode and air in incredible (parallel universe, superluminal) and unpredictable displays of power (static charge micro-cratering doorknobs or passing through walls).  

Lloyd wrote. Could those clustering electrons be the neutral ones? Don't you call them nectrons?

Hi Lloyd. Yes, there must a set of electron sized analogs of the neutron, particles that can recapture most of their photon emissions by their top spin level. Clustering electrons/positrons are more complex but can also be said to be ‘neutral’, in the sense that they can configure themselves in close proximity in spite of their natural charge repulsion. They are formed under their own regimes of matter distribution and charge density and have signature charge flow densities.

There are many types of photonic matter, many unique spin sets, since photons are stable over 2 (or more) daltons. Electrons are too large to travel at c, yet too small to stand still. Their velocities are incredible – compared to ions - yet I suppose electrons can be found as varied types of leptonic matter. These particles quickly respond to charge flows. I believe they are the lightning bolts removing excess charge from the atmosphere, thereby slowing the storm.      

/////////////////////////////////////////

Please forgive me if I seem a bit unusual. I live in the flood plain of a 900’ tall earthen dam in northern California. The largest in the world, or so I’m told. We’ve had a very wet rainy season after years of drought. The spillway developed a break last week and so they closed it a couple of days ago in order to assess the damage. The resulting 40,000 cuft/sec overflow was being handled by an emergency spillway, a thirty foot high wall of sloped dirt capped with concrete holding a million acre foot lake surface behind it. After about a day, yesterday afternoon, water began encircling the emergency spillway. The water was boiling away the dirt just outside the concrete. The damaged main spillway was reopened, evacuation was ordered. Breach was expected within an hour. About 200,000 people in this agricultural area are affected. I’m in a good position to leave quickly, so I stayed behind. Overnight, water stopped overtopping the emergency spillway. The water is no longer removing soil, but the boils are there. They are trying to pack rocks and dirt before either an unexpected collapse or the next rain in a few days. I'm tired of Interesting times.
.

.
“?” should be a stable, A-spin type particle, 1821 times larger than the proton.

A charged particle traveling forward, and spinning, at c, can sustain boosts of additional energy by adding a new end-over-end rotation – a new spin. I believe Miles said that all charged particles travel at c until just below the electron size. Electrons are unable to dodge photons in the field from both (or all) directions, and so electrons are too large to travel at c.

If electrons never reach a forward velocity of c, how can they generate end-over-end spins? How are protons created? From electron spins alone? That can’t be right. I would conclude that charge channels necessary for the creation of protons must enable lightspeed electrons.

What happens above the proton? The same problem, only greater. Protons presumably spin at c, yet travel far slower than electrons, closer to zero velocity. How do they generate new end-over-end spins? I suppose charge flows sufficient to accelerate protons to lightspeed exist somewhere, perhaps the same dynamic that generated the proton in the first place. Do we have any proof that matter 1821x larger and denser than protons exist?

I’m beginning to believe that spin stacking probably ends at the proton level. Heavy matter at our scale, and above, seems to be comprised of proton structures: hydrogen, helium (alpha) and all the atomic elements, along with neutrons, electrons and smaller charged particles.
.

Spin stacking is a function of the collision. The linear velocity is a factor, but not the only one. Each particle in the collision is spinning at c and if the spins are in opposite directions, they will collide with a force of 2c which is enough to create a new spin level without even taking the linear velocity into consideration. The linear velocity mainly provides context for the spin level collision. The linear velocities must be in the right line, with respect to each other, or the spin levels won't line up correctly to provide the force required for a new spin level. This is also why spin ups and downs are rather rare and most collisions just result in normal(ish) inelastic collisions.

.
End-over-end spins may be easily lost or gained from rare, opposing spin head-on collisions. I never realized that. I always thought they just gave the best bounce, perfect energy transfer. I’ve also spent many hours considering collisions; my ears are burning.

While ‘rare’, spin count changes should still occur at a fairly steady rate, depending on the fields, particle positions and velocities involved, much higher than I had imagined. We can have steady photonic spin count changes – essentially matter creation and destruction - resulting from charge recycling alone.  

Very good. Thanks Nevyn
.

Yes, 'rare' is a relative word and the actual rate might be considered quite high from a human perspective but I use the term from a photon perspective. The more dense the charge field, the less rare they become because the chances of collision increase.

You have used the terms 'opposing spin head-on collision' which is true, but I wanted to point out that the spins are actually the same on both photons but the direction (linear velocity) makes them opposing to each other. If they were traveling in the same direction, they would spin the same way. Just another trippy fact of stacked spins that can fool you if you aren't looking carefully.

So, does that mean that 2 photons traveling in the same(ish) direction but with opposing spins can actually stack a new spin (or remove one)? I think it does but am open to discussion about it.

.

So, does that mean that 2 photons traveling in the same(ish) direction but with opposing spins can actually stack a new spin (or remove one)? I think it does but am open to discussion about it.

I believe it. Instead of open space, random photons and rare collisions, recycling charge matter might be considered an engine through which large 2-way photon currents flow, which convert random field photons to mainly emission plane traffic. Those two flows pass through each other; how can that happen without many simultaneous spin change possibilities?

Take pole-to-pole 2-way traffic; slightly off-center high energy collisions would create random increased radius photons that clog the direct path. Those larger particles must be pushed aside, this may be how recycling charge currents within the charged particle begin to develop. Miles believes that charge flows into poles with vorticular motion; direct path disruptions are the only way I can imagine they might form. These currents then need to be incorporated with the B_photon motion.

Obviously we don't have a complete enough picture to model with any certainty yet. I agree we’re making progress.
.