Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

I've been looking at the neutron a bit more today, and it struck me as add that its emissions blast right into the proton's emission with, well, no discernable effect. Could be grasping at straws here. But it seems like the proton and the neutron must emit/recycle a similar amount of charge, only with the neutron it would be more concentrated since it's pole-to-pole. If they're both pushing a similar amount of photons per second, the proton's emissions should be very much more dispersed and the neutron's should be (relative to the proton's) concentrated, like a laser.

Looking at Mathis's models, Nevyn's models, and my own, it seems like the neutron's charge should either plug in to the proton's more readily or otherwise blast the proton's charge away, as they meet.

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/physics/AtomicWebViewer/AtomicViewer.php

(I was looking at that model of Thorium, but any of those past Helium should illustrate my point.)

In my model, the angles are way too tight.

https://vimeo.com/157484485

There's no direct connect between the neutrons (green spheres) and the protons (yellow), it's just that's how I modeled it for animation's sake. Could it be simply that the neutrons and protons are much further apart, and the ~30 N and S emissions would line up better to enter the neutron's poles if there were a greater distance? Do we have any distance calcs relative to the radius of the proton, where the other protons and neutrons might be?

To be fair, your model is closer to what Miles has diagrammed than mine. Although, you can adjust how far in/out they are in AtomicViewer but it always seemed to me that they should be further out. Mainly because they are supposed to be support pillars, of a kind, and supports generally work better further out. Miles paper of Deuterium suggested that they were close to the proton though.

I'm not so convinced that the through-charge of the neutron will make that much of an impact on the protons charge emission. Yes, it will make some changes but it should only be slight. If it is measurable, one day, then it could be confirmation of this nuclear structure. It would show as a dip in the protons emission and a small charge stream perpendicular to the protons emission where the neutron is. I've always wondered if the neutrons stay in one spot (relative to the proton) or if they circle around. I have modeled both in AV and it looks pretty cool with all of that rotation going on but it gets in the way of studying the models a bit.

I think the neutron's emission is only 0.6 of the protons (for the same volume of space?). Or was that its magnetic moment? I can't remember. Even if it is the magnetic moment, then that is caused by the same charge photons so it probably amounts to the same thing.

By the way, you can specify the element you want to show on the AV URL like this:

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/physics/AtomicWebViewer/AtomicViewer.php?metadata=false&element=90&position=0,0,90

I meant to add a button to retrieve the current view as a URL with the element and position set for you but never got around to it.

My charge streams do not know anything about each other, they are just for visual effect. Collisions at that level are beyond what AV is trying to do, although it would be nice. Maybe one day I will reach that level. Given my current projects, it seems like it should be possible at some stage but the shear amount of photons required is quite staggering to me at the moment.

This paper has some interesting things to say:

http://milesmathis.com/neutron.pdf

Seems the neutron is not as energetic inside the nucleus, although Miles is mostly talking about neutrons that are used as stoppers, so are in a place that could have a proton in there, and not about neutrons inside of a proton stack. See iron as an example:

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/physics/AtomicWebViewer/AtomicViewer.php?metadata=false&element=26&position=0,0,60

Indeed, I don't think the neutron's emissions would off-balance anything, I'm just trying to visualize where they go. But it seems like perhaps I should be visualizing where they COME from, instead. That close to the proton, some ambient charge will of course exist and the neutron was already recycling it and doing its Neutron Thang before or just after it meets the proton in the nucleus, anyway. But that said, THAT close to the proton (however close it is), the neutron may be receiving plenty of charge from the proton too. And the neutron's emission wouldn't really affect the proton itself, but rather the proton's emission profile as they collide.

It might not be very important. What I'm really trying to rule out is the neutron pointing IN, at 90°, while I work on a new model. I'm not representing through-charge very well in my models and I'm trying to figure out where it's going, how it fits in. While I don't have much problem with our model (based on Mathis's, as it stands) it's a bit weird for me to see the neutrons still kinda just... Neutral? If they're emitting up and down (towards the proton's emission), then wouldn't they be repelling and thus blocking some of the proton's emission that is supposed to be keeping them in place?

Here's a quick diagram I 'Shopped together from a screencap of my previous model. Here, I've purposely drawn the neutrons at 90° to see how it looks. Of course this now begs the question of what happens in the center, but it was the best way I could think of to illustrate my problem here.



Mostly I'm just looking for clarification and ideas on this one. I don't think this is how it works but for some reason the neutron just seems fishy to me lately, pointing up and down. What keeps it up and down, relative to the protons? Ambient charge and magnetism? Is it easier for the neutron to spin at this orientation and location, in a similar way it's easier for it to be sandwiched mechanically between the protons?

To put it another way, what is keeping this (green) neutron in place here in your AV model of Iron? External ambient charge pressure?



We can readily see it channeling through here, so it makes some sense, but I feel like I'm missing something about how/why it would be constrained in the alpha particle (He) configuration.

.
Jared, Good observation. I think you’ve found a Miles modeling error. I don’t believe we can have single protons at carousal arm ends (as shown in your last image from AV), and then tack a single orthogonal neutron on top of that. A single proton/neutron cannot stand out on the arm, a single alpha can.

I’ll try to justify myself. First, if I understand correctly, there is no straight pole-to-pole charge flow through neutrons. All neutron charge enters one pole and exits the other only after having transited through each the four neutron spin levels. If a proton converts random photons into proton emission plane traffic, what does the neutron do? It seems to pass limited pole traffic.

Within say Iron, neutrons positioned outside the holes (proton poles outside axis alphas) at right angle to the main axis are held by charge “suction” – where the charge field density surrounding the neutron is greater than the charge density channel to the axial proton. Miles explains this with the fact that given the proton counts, the main axis draws more charge current than can be released by the carousal. This results in a larger amount of pole-to-pole current. Empty holes along the axis allow charge currents to rush in, these currents can unbalance and break such atomic structures. The neutron at the proton pole reduces the charge flow into the proton (alpha).

Within Alphas, neutrons are the pillars that allow protons to stack in pairs. I’m not aware of a good description of charge flow through alpha neutrons.
 
Nestled within the alpha's dual proton emission field, neutrons (and protons) are attracted gravitationaly. They are held apart by their mutual charge emissions. Neutron poles are oriented parallel to the proton poles. Charge flow through the alpha is not hindered because the two neutrons prevent either neutron from positioning itself in the alphas’ primary proton to proton charge path. Neutrons cannot pass direct proton to proton charge flows, but they will still pass a lower charge current parallel to, but off of the main alpha axis.

So what are the actual single proton and neutron positions at the carousal arm ends? I think it's likely the proton will align its axis with the two existing alphas below it. The neutron would then "stopper" the arm end in line with proton.
.

I don't see any problems with that neutron being attached to the single carousel proton. The proton has a charge intake and the neutron gets held in there by that charge flow. The neutron orients itself so that its own through-charge is inline with the protons charge intake and they form a charge channel together. This limits the charge reaching the proton and that limits the through-charge of that proton so that the carousel arms charge flow is actually increased since there is less cross traffic.

What I have trouble with is the direction of charge through the carousel. I can easily see charge flowing into it (from the outside) since there is protons/stacks there pushing charge towards the core (when there are 2 carousel levels, as in 2 stacks on the same arm). Charge flowing out of it is a little harder to see. Yes, I can see the channels for it to flow through but it is taking the atoms through-charge and turning it to flow out the carousel arms that I struggle with. Miles just says that angular momentum causes it but I find that a little less mechanical than I like. My only justification is that the core proton stack takes some of the atoms through-charge and emits it equatorially which pushes it towards the carousel arms but that has nothing to do with angular momentum of the carousel level at all.

With respect to neutrons inside a proton stack, I'm happy enough that the neutrons sit up-right but not so sure of what charge they feed on. Miles seems to imply that they feed off the through-charge of the protons which does seem to help with my next question. How is it that they don't get pushed out? Could they use enough of the protons emission charge in such a way that it doesn't push them out? If they feed off the through-charge then that could hold them in close to the protons so that they don't get hit by the protons emission (much). But then they aren't really working as structural supports. So they probably should be a lot closer to the center of a proton stack than I have modeled in AV (by default). They look a bit strange when I push them to the center, but that is just me being used to seeing them a certain way rather than any physical reasons.

.
Here's a good alpha reference.

Gas Discharge Lamps a better theory
http://milesmathis.com/gas.pdf

The reason I could see the better answer so fast is that I have already drawn the Helium nucleus in detail. I first drew it several years ago  in my first attempt to explain charge channeling. Although that first diagram was rough, it did the job it needed to do. A couple of years later I improved that diagram immensely by showing the fuller role of neutrons in the architecture. This is from  my paper on Deuterium:

I will just copy what I said there:

That is the He sandwich I was talking about, but here I have drawn all the main charge vectors. From them, you can see that the neutrons must bond in He4 side-to-side. The left neutron is then channeling the anticharge of the upper 2H, but since the bottom 2H is upside-down to the top one, it doesn't feel that charge as anticharge. It is looking at the anticharge from the other direction, so it sees it as charge. Which of course means our two neutrons are reversed. One is upside-down to the other. In some way, it is now an anti-neutron.

.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of when I wrote that Miles puts the neutrons close to the protons and taking charge from their through-charge.

Does that diagram seem out of proportion to anyone else? The neutrons seems too big. Maybe I am making my proton charge emission discs too large (which you can adjust in AV and it makes everything look really weird to me, but again, that is just what I am used to). Maybe it should be a bit more like this:

.
That does seem to be a radical change. I guess you've adjusted your alpha emission radius and so the single protons still have your previous emission radius, bringing that proton closer would alleviate what I feel is a problem with the proton/neutron hanging out there so far.

Have you considered whether your emission disc may be too sharp, or well defined. Miles has described the photon emission as fans, not angled of course, but a bit more broadening, latitude wise may be more accurate. That fan might even help block neutrons from leaving the alpha.
.

I just reduced the size of the emission disc for all protons (they don't care if they are in a stack or not) using the settings in the app. The red spheres (protons BPhoton volume) and the green spheres (neutrons BPhoton volume) have not changed. There is a perspective distortion in that image above as the gray discs look larger than the blue but they are actually the same size.

The trouble I have with emission discs is that they need to start from a small volume of space around the protons equator and then spread out which is very hard to model without cluttering it up. The charge particles show the emission volume much better because I can give them the directions I want but the discs are just squashed spheres.

Here is the same image but with the discs turned off and the charge particles with a very high density (to help see them):



The charge particles don't come out very well in the images, but you can see how the particles spread out as they leave the proton. This also shows the density being reduced as that charge spreads out which was mentioned (on a planetary scale) in another thread the other day (in Lloyd's thread about tides).

I don't think the protons charge emission can block the neutron from leaving the stack (I used to think that). If anything, it should push it out which is why I mentioned Miles idea that they use the through-charge to feed on since that keeps them close to the inside of the stack where they won't be hit by the emission of the protons.

Thank you both for reminding me of that diagram of his. I've read all his papers three or more times, but there's so much to digest and it's pretty difficult to search his site (I mean, from a database POV) so sometimes I get lost in it all. And I really appreciate you folks being here to respond and correct me. Miles is pretty slow at responding, and tends to take an attitude of "read all 300 of my papers again", even if he never actually says that.

I'll fix my model. I had the neutron's in/out charge stream somehow linked to the proton's equatorial emission, and should have known better. I knew there was something inherently wrong with my model.

The proton's equatorial charge is supposed to, as I understand it, kinda "sandwich" the neutrons if they get to close. But I can very much see how it would seem they would instead push them out, since the charge's vector is definitely going out from the nucleus much more than angled towards it.

I'll be back with a new diagram shortly. I've found a better way to use Maya to represent our particles, only without any stacked spin kinematics really, so I'm just going by mass differentials until I can figure that out and insert it. Meanwhile I should be able to make some videos showing electricity, magnetism, and more to help people visualize things better, but at the cost of the per-photon accuracy we'd all love to see in play. My models are inferior to Nevyn's, both mathematically and visually. But perhaps we can use them in the same way we all use Mathis's (frankly) terrible diagrams to get the point across, and study the finer points as they come up.

.

Nevyn wrote: With respect to neutrons inside a proton stack, I'm happy enough that the neutrons sit up-right but not so sure of what charge they feed on. Miles seems to imply that they feed off the through-charge of the protons which does seem to help with my next question. How is it that they don't get pushed out? Could they use enough of the protons emission charge in such a way that it doesn't push them out? If they feed off the through-charge then that could hold them in close to the protons so that they don't get hit by the protons emission (much). But then they aren't really working as structural supports. So they probably should be a lot closer to the center of a proton stack than I have modeled in AV (by default).

Nevyn, I don’t see your point that charge pushed toward the carousel arms has nothing to do with the angular momentum of the carousel level. The core proton stack - the carousel - is spinning. Angular momentum is present where each of the core protons turn charge from the main axis to their emission planes, and so to the carousel arms.

From http://milesmathis.com/gas.pdf

Since it is the charge stream that was holding the neutrons in their positions, one of the neutrons will become nearly useless in the new architecture. Since all the charge is going the opposite way to its channel, it will have nothing to do. Even more, the charge channel on the other neutron will become overloaded. There will be more charge to channel than the single neutron can channel. Therefore, the unused neutron will flip to match its channel to the given channel. In doing this, the conductivity of the alpha will increase greatly. In fact, under optimal conditions, we would expect to see an increase from 2/3 – 1/3 = .33 to 2, which is an increase of 6x in a single alpha.

I had forgotten that alpha neutrons can flip within the alpha allowing it to accommodate widely changing charge streams. Alpha neutrons definitely feed off through charge, but I don’t see how that holds them close together. I don’t see why gravity isn’t a factor here. Note, Miles is fairly explicit - ‘the charge stream holds the neutrons in their positions’.

One of my problems is understanding how that the charge stream through the alpha (or atom) is at lower pressure then outside the alpha (or atom). The charge field is denser outside the alpha and so ‘holes in the axis alphas must be stopped to prevent charge from rushing in to unbalance all but the smallest elements. The charge field acts more like a fluid than a gas but we tend to think of charge as light rays.

There seems to be much more charge present than we assume.
.

This is what I am talking about:



That is the core of Iron showing the through-charge coming from the top and bottom and from each carousel arm. My question is what causes the north/south through-charge to turn and go out the carousel arms?

The 2 protons in the core stack will emit some of that charge and some of that will enter the carousel arms and be emitted along that charge channel. But that is only some of it, and not really enough to cause a strong through-charge on each carousel arm. Remember that these arms can be used for bonding and so they must have a dense through-charge to maintain that bond.

I just don't see how angular momentum has anything to do with it. Even if that core stack is spinning along with the carousel arms, that doesn't mean that the north/south through-charge will be turned by it. Another possibility is that the through-charge collides in the middle and some of it is turned to exit through the carousel arms but again, that is not really enough for a dense carousel through-charge stream. Even adding them together doesn't seem to add up to enough, to me.

.

Nevyn, I believe the AV model is misleading you. For each carousel charge stream you show only one charge path where there are actually 2. In the alpha diagram above, Miles shows main charge vectors along each proton of the alpha where the AV model has only one, a charge stream penetrating neutron equators.

The single charge stream along the alpha axis is still a "single vertical bright line" although we recognize the stream feeds side by side neutrons.
.

I think we are talking about 2 different things.

AV does have charge streams running in both directions but they are along the same line, within the same cylindrical volume. I agree that AV does not model the neutron positions well and certainly does not model these through-charge streams going through the neutrons at all.

What I was trying to get at is how the through-charge coming in from the top and bottom gets converted into carousel output through-charge. Nothing to do with the neutrons at all, really. Although, you have helped me to see that if those neutrons are close to the protons, then it is only the protons equatorial emission that can reach the carousel through-charge channels.

.
The main axis charge stream should not intersect with the carousel streams as shown in AV.

You are showing the carousel charge paths intersecting within the core alpha in a single line (plane). That is incorrect. The alpha axis charge stream may be a single line, but the alpha side currents are channeled into two lines, the proton emission planes.

The carousal charge path through the core is along the proton emission planes, and not the single line between them. Any charge along the main axis diverted to the proton emission plane is on its way to the carousel arm, that's the angular momentum change.
.

It seems you are only thinking of the carousel arms as output. There can be protons on the ends of those arms that push charge into the carousel arm from the outside. Nothing is stopping that charge from traveling all the way into the core.

But you are correct, I haven't modeled them correctly since AV has streams going both ways from the very center of the core to the carousel arms and there should only really be charge coming in from the carousel. The output carousel comes from the proton emission, as we have established.

.
Through-charge coming in from the top and bottom gets converted into carousel output through the proton emission planes. OK we agree.

The charge stream (vector lines) can alternate between emission plane to pole-to-pole and back to emission plane. I don't believe you can assume carousel arm inputs to the core center can intersect at a single point (volume) in space within the alpha core either; neutrons become obstacles. There would be no direct way for that carousel arm's incoming charge to rejoin the main axis charge stream.
.

I just found an interesting statement from Miles about neutrons inside an alpha, and it contradicts our findings. This is from the paper on Oxygen and Nitrogen in the atmosphere:

Miles Mathis wrote:
I have published the above math before,* but we are required to go into new theory now, since we have
to ask exactly how much charge channeling neutrons are capable of. In my nuclear diagrams in
previous papers, I have mainly used them as stoppers or posts, while admitting that they do more than
that. But now we must at least estimate how much charge channeling they do. Otherwise we can't
hope to get a final answer here. When we pursue this question with more detail in later papers, we will
find that it depends upon the neutrons' position in the nucleus, but with nitrogen and oxygen, we find
them only in two positions: either they are in standard positions in alphas (as below), or they are paired
with an outermost proton, pulling charge into the axial holes. In the alphas, they are positioned with
their equators parallel to the proton equators. This allows their charge field emission—which is polar
—to act to keep the protons apart and from interfering with one another. But since the neutron poles
are now aligned to the axial charge movement, they can also channel charge along parallel corridors.
In other words, in this position they divert part of the charge that the protons would otherwise have
channeled equatorially. Since smaller nuclei like nitrogen and oxygen don't have carousel levels, no
bonding is taking place along those equatorial channels, and the neutrons are completely free to divert a
part of the charge in those channels back to the axial channel.

Emphasis is mine.

The first bolded statement agrees with what we have been saying. The neutrons sit up-right.

The second bolded statement contradicts our findings that the neutrons take charge from the through-charge of the protons in the alpha.

Did Miles change his mind when he wrote the Deuterium paper?

I am a little concerned with part of that second statement where Miles says "protons would otherwise have channeled equatorially". This implies that the protons have not actually channeled it at all, but would have if not for the neutrons. But it could also be read that the neutrons take part of that equatorial charge emission for themselves, and therefore, it does not become part of the equatorial emission (or does not stay a part of that emission for very long). Either way, the neutrons are not using the through-charge in this paper.

Interesting, Nevyn. I'm going to bring this up to him and see what he thinks directly. He seemed to have no problem with my Alpha video from a modeling perspective, but I think it's still pretty rough as a demonstration. Still working on getting the system to behave purely on mechanics and not on animation tricks, though.

I was able to come up with a rough video of Hydrogen which may help us discern what's happening in Helium a little better. Here, I have the neutron "feeding" the proton, or the through-charge holding the neutron in the nucleus rather. Not sure how accurate this is, and I'd appreciate input.

https://vimeo.com/206241864

I just read that paragraph again and noticed something I missed yesterday.

Miles Mathis wrote:But since the neutron poles are now aligned to the axial charge movement, they can also channel charge along parallel corridors.

and

Miles Mathis wrote:the neutrons are completely free to divert a part of the charge in those channels back to the axial channel.

So they are doing both. The neutrons feed off of the protons emission, but divert it back into the through-charge streams. Therefore, neutrons in the alpha actually boost the charge of an atom.

That is the only way I can see hydrogen being built. There is no other place for the neutron to go. In that position, it is blocking the charge from one side of the proton which means that hydrogen actually has less energy than a proton.

Where does the electron go? My guess is it is on the other side from the neutron. But it could be possible for it to get stuck in between the neutron and the proton before the neutron gets there. That would make it very hard to remove it and ionize hydrogen without removing that neutron.

I'm showing the electron as blue, located at the south pole there like it is in the He4 alpha, but I'm also showing it to scale. Maybe not helpful for these diagrams? Maybe I should make it 1/10th the size instead of 1/1821st? Would simple labels to one side be more helpful?

I don't think the electron is 1/1821 the size of the proton, I think it is 1/1821 the mass of the proton. I could be wrong but if the electron is only 3 or 4 spin levels below the proton (depending on if you believe in higher level axial spins and if those axial spins increase the size or not), then it is only 2^3 smaller than it.

I can't see the electron in that image above. Is it mingled in with the blue charge?

I didn't read everything here. Why do you want a neutron in your Hydrogen atom simulation?

.
1. I agree with Lloyd. For a hydrogen model, I’m surprised you’ve included a neutron. Hydrogen is usually described as a proton and an electron.

2. I see the electron in the initial setup, but it is soon lost in the photon motions. I appreciate the blue electron charge stream.

3. In my Proposal for Electricity Animation post, I mentioned diatomic Hydrogen, or Hydrogen gas, which is actually two Hydrogens and two electrons. Miles goes into some depth in Diatomic Hydrogen  http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf.
.

I included the neutron (deuterium) specifically because I'm studying the neutron more heavily right now, to understand the dynamics and mechanics. Thus, this thread here.

Also I'd already animated the lone proton (no electron, though). It would be very easy to rework both animations and also tritium, so I'll go ahead and get on that.

Here's his paper on the topic including some good stuff on neutrons, if anyone needs a quick link:

http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf

LongTimeAirman wrote:Miles goes into some depth in Diatomic Hydrogen http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf.

Thanks for the link, I'll reread that one again now. Looks particularly useful here. It's hard to digest 300+ papers fully even after multiple reads, thus our analysis here. You guys are very helpful.

.
Nevyn, compare the proton and electron, mass and radii from the Mass, Radius, Circumference, Wavelength, and Energy Table.

re, radius electron (m) 2.36E-18, rp,radius proton 4.34E-15. rp/re=1836
me, mass electron (kg) 9.109383E-31, mp mass proton1.672622E-27. mp/me=1836
.

If we assume the electron is 2.36E-18m in radius, and I assume that means the top level spin radius, then we can't reach the proton in 3 or even 4 spin levels. We have to go through 11 spin levels to reach 4.83328e-15m.

I just don't see how these numbers equate unless those radii are including the charge field of the electron and proton. The proton would have a larger charge field size (relative to its own top level spin radius), since it is bigger and can collide with more ambient charge photons, so we might be able to reach that size with only 3 or 4 spin levels but that is still a huge increase in size for the relative charge fields.

Let's assume we need 4 spin levels to go from an electron to a proton (since that is what Miles has stated, although I don't agree with it) and also we will assume, illogically, that the axial spin doubles the radius.

2.63E-18m * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 3.776e-17m

Let's look at the difference in radius to the stated proton size:

4.34E-15m - 3.776e-17m = 4.30224e-15m

So a very large portion of that size is unaccounted for and I don't think we can use that much space for the emission field.

Let's look at the ratio of that size to the stated proton size:

3.776e-17m / 4.34E-15m = 8.7e+29

That is a huge number. It is 2.9e+21 * c -> 9.667e+12c^2 -> 32200c^3.

I just don't see how these numbers add up. What am I missing?

.
Nevyn, Sorry to distress you, please don't look at it that way. There's a simple explanation or two, consider them puzzles. I have an engagement to attend to, and will reply tomorrow.
.

That's cool, Airman, I like to work from first principles so I want to see all of these values coming from the BPhoton radius, through stacked spins, to some real spin radii. It can be difficult to know what the radius of an electron or proton actually is. Does a given value include the charge field or not? Of course, if they are mainstream values then I do assume they include the charge field, since they can't remove what they don't know.

Nevyn wrote:Let's assume we need 4 spin levels to go from an electron to a proton (since that is what Miles has stated, although I don't agree with it) and also we will assume, illogically, that the axial spin doubles the radius.

Can we chart the spin stackings and come up with a solution for this? Perhaps you already have; I know we've talked about it before. Do you think the proton is eight spins above the electron?

From "Unifying the Electron and Proton":

Mathis wrote:We repeat this same math and logic to create the y and z-spins. The radius of the y-spin is 4, so the term will be [1 + (8 x 16 x 32)/22]. We divide by 4 since we must use only half of both end-over-end spins. Likewise, the z-spin is [1 + (8 x 16 x 32 x 64)/24]. We divide by 2 squared squared because we are now in three dimensions. The x-spin is expressing only 1/4 of its strength relative to z, since it is orthogonal twice. The complete equation or representation then becomes:

[1 + 8], [1 + (8 x 16)/2], [1 + (8 x 16 x 32)/22], [1 + (8 x 16 x 32 x 64)/24]
= [1 + 8], [1 + 26], [1 + 210], [1 + 214] = 9, 65, 1025, 16385

The electron with all spins has an energy of 16,385. The electron with no spin has an energy of 1. The electron with axial spin has an energy of 9. If we divide 16,385 by 9 we get 16,385/9 = 1820.56

We may therefore deduce that the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis. An electron with all possible stable spins is a proton, anti-proton, or neutron. An electron with no z-spin is a meson.

http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

Is this merely a matter of nameology? Are we often naming the electron at rest (which doesn't occur naturally, since everything has a linear velocity), or is that where Mathis got fuzzy on us? His numbers are relative to the electron, of course, which doesn't necessarily help us in this case.

Miles is talking about energy there, not radius or mass, although he is using the radii relationships. We could use E=mc^2 to determine the mass difference:

1820.56 / c^2 = 2.02284e-14

I assumed meters but I'm not sure if that value is in g or kg.

Yes, I did write a spreadsheet containing spin radii which can be found at:

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/math/spin

As I wrote my post above, and found the 11 spin level difference, I originally stopped at 9 thinking that the next doubling would take me over the stated value. I initially took that as evidence of not using higher level axial spins and the proton would be 3 spin sets larger than the electron. Then I thought I should check and found 11 levels difference which goes slightly over the stated value. This could mean something or I could be on the wrong track. Hell, I may be in the wrong ballpark. I just can't help but think that all of these values should be related and derivable from each other and I am determined to find those relationships.

I applaud your coining of the term nameology (which I am pronouncing name-ee-ology, just for kicks). I do this all the time when I can't think of the word I am looking for. It can be quite comical at times. The word you wanted was nomenclature but that doesn't sound anywhere near as cool.

Nevyn wrote:I applaud your coining of the term nameology (which I am pronouncing name-ee-ology, just for kicks).

That's exactly how it's pronounced, but I didn't coin it! Willem Dafoe's character did, in some old movie entitled, "Boondock Saints".



http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/boondock-saints-the/quote_4206.html

But you are correct. Mathis was calcing energies, not radius directly. I think I have been conflating the two a lot lately, in my math, so I'm glad you pointed this out before I made even more mistakes.

So on your chart, in the first page, which numbers would be the electron and proton? I was trying to match the data there with your above post's data but couldn't figure it out. Are you saying the proton is 11 spins from the initial Axial spin photon, or eleven higher than the electron? Just trying to clarify. I apologize if I seem muddy on this topic, even after all our conversation. I don't trust myself too deeply on this topic, it's still all very new to me.

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm showing the electron as blue, located at the south pole there like it is in the He4 alpha, but I'm also showing it to scale. Maybe not helpful for these diagrams? Maybe I should make it 1/10th the size instead of 1/1821st? Would simple labels to one side be more helpful?

I just watched the video rather than look at the image and I could see the electron before the charge starting flowing.

My question is about that blue charge. Is that coming from the electron? I don't think it should be. It doesn't have enough charge emission, and not in the right direction, to go up through the proton. But if it is just representing the protons through-charge, then everything is fine but with the electron being blue and that charge being blue, I assume they are linked.

Jared Magneson wrote:That's exactly how it's pronounced, but I didn't coin it! Willem Dafoe's character did, in some old movie entitled, "Boondock Saints".

Ahh, good movie and great actor.

Jared Magneson wrote:
So on your chart, in the first page, which numbers would be the electron and proton? I was trying to match the data there with your above post's data but couldn't figure it out. Are you saying the proton is 11 spins from the initial Axial spin photon, or eleven higher than the electron? Just trying to clarify. I apologize if I seem muddy on this topic, even after all our conversation. I don't trust myself too deeply on this topic, it's still all very new to me.

Yeah, that was all a bit confusing.

The 11 spin levels comes from the difference between the radii values Airman wrote. I took the electron radius and kept doubling it until it reached somewhere near the value for the proton and it took 11 levels to get there. Since Miles has explicitly stated that the proton is 4 levels above the electron, I couldn't see how to make all of the numbers work.

So, in short, the 11 levels start from the electron and go up to the proton.

.

My Mass, Radius, Circumference, Wavelength, and Energy Table is in excel; I’ve played with the numbers and ran across this problem too. I see it takes roughly 11 doublings of an A radius (electron) to reach the next A radius (proton). Please notice that every number on every row is separated by a Dalton (1820.56), (or NIST 1836), or approximately 11 doublings from the A with their adjacent numbers. The Dalton may be a scaler, but how can 1821 be construed as 4 doublings? I agree, what’s going on?

r = mc√c/2
Cγ = λmγ/E = 8rγ
λ = Cc2
Eγ = 2rγ√c = mγc2 = λ/4c√c

The speed of light, mass, radius, circumference, wavelength and energy are all functions of one another. We can easily calculate a column given any single number. I’d say the table’s definitely built from first principles, though my version may be lacking. For example, I used NIST electron and proton values, rather than calculating the radius of the electron to be 1/c2. I obtained Miles’ IR Photon values so I thought it was good enough for an ex govt worker.

Focusing on Unifying the Electron and Proton: http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html. I’ve read it many times before today. My latest effort hasn’t gotten me any further. Here’s one quote – “Well, as the radius is to the velocity, the circumference will be to the spin”; someone needs to explain what that means. I can follow the energy calculation expressions - finally divide 16,385 by 9, and we get about 1821.

I'll throw in a scientific wag - straight doubling makes no sense, maybe the radii are stretched out by the speed of light similar to mass, wavelength and energy.  
.

Airman wrote:Here’s one quote – “Well, as the radius is to the velocity, the circumference will be to the spin”; someone needs to explain what that means.

It took me quite a few reads of that section but I think I may have some meaning for it.

Miles is talking about the relationships between these things. We can express the velocity in radii just by dividing the velocity by the radius. That gives us the number of radii per second or whatever our units are.

We can do the same thing with the spin but we can't use the radius, we have to use the circumference. So we divide the orbital velocity by the circumference and that value should be the same as the linear velocity divided by the radius. Note that the linear velocity and the tangential velocity are equal in this instance.

At first, it doesn't seem to make sense to express the velocity in radii, but the reason he is doing that is because the radius is common to both equations.

This is actually what I did when I developed my spin equation a few weeks ago. I took Miles angular velocity equation (which gives the tangential velocity as traveled on the circumference), calculated a value with it and then divided that by the circumference. This gives me the relationship between the tangential velocity and the circumference which can then be converted into an angle by multiplying by 2pi because 2pi is an expression of the circumference in angles.

You have to remember that a circumference is not a circle because a circumference is a circle at a certain radius. For my needs, I only wanted the angle because I was already using the radius in the translation and just needed the rotation to go with it. Once I put the translation and the rotation into the same matrix (the translation and rotation are separate parts of a 4x4 matrix) I had created a matrix that put the particle in the correct location for that spin level. Multiplying all of those spin level matrices together gave me a single matrix that took the BPhoton from the particles location (its center) to the correct position relative to that center.

Another way to look at it is that the linear velocity and the radius contain straight distances. The orbital velocity and the circumference contain curved distances. That is why we can't just divide the orbital (or angular) velocity by the radius, because it isn't curved and you can't divide by something different to what you are dividing.

This is just really saying that the distance traveled by the linear velocity, in some given amount of time, must match the amount of spin about the circumference in that same time. In other threads I have made posts saying that you have to make sure that your relative velocities are all equal rather than care about real time. We can speed up and slow down our animations as long as the relationships between things remain the same. This is what Miles is saying here.

Given an axial spin, the particle must make 1 complete revolution in the same time that the linear velocity has traveled 8 times the radius. If that is the case, then the linear velocity and tangential velocities are equal. It took me quite some time to figure that out on my own. I didn't realise that Miles had written it in not-so-straight-forward terms already.

Airman wrote:I'll throw in a scientific wag - straight doubling makes no sense, maybe the radii are stretched out by the speed of light similar to mass, wavelength and energy.

No, there is no way for the radius to be stretched out like that. The radius is a real thing that does not rely on time but mass, wavelength and energy do, even if the mainstream don't realise it. Because they rely on time, they can be stretched out since you are looking at them with respect to their previous position or value but the radius is relative to the center and that is moving with the velocity too.

Mass and energy are a little different than wavelength but they still rely on time and they both have the velocity wrapped up inside of them. The radius is what it is no matter what the velocity is. It is completely independent of anything else.

.
Nevyn wrote. Given an axial spin, the particle must make 1 complete revolution in the same time that the linear velocity has traveled 8 times the radius. If that is the case, then the linear velocity and tangential velocities are equal. It took me quite some time to figure that out on my own. I didn't realise that Miles had written it in not-so-straight-forward terms already.

Thanks Nevyn. I must admit, its hard for me to ask for help at times, and sometimes even harder receiving it. This paragraph is especially helpful. I do seem to have a bit of difficulty with combining linear and curved motion.

If mass is time dependent, it would seem to me that radius would be time dependent too. I'll chew on it.

I've been thinking about the dalton a lot lately. If I get any inspiration I promise I'll share.
.

Don't feel bad about misunderstanding curved motion or distances. The mainstream still hasn't understood it with 100's of years of effort!

The important thing to remember when dealing with linear and curved motions is to keep like things together and un-like things apart. You can't divide a curve by a linear distance and expect a meaningful answer. This is why Miles often works in relative values. You can exchange relationships but you can't exchange values.

I might have thrown you a curve ball regarding mass. Mass is time dependent when discussing charge since we need to know the mass of that charge and that relies on time. However, if there is such a thing as intrinsic mass (which only the BPhoton could have) then this is not time dependent. I think it is the intrinsic mass that you are thinking of where-as I was thinking of mass by charge emission. I was wrong to use that kind of mass because we are not talking about charge emission here (although it is difficult to know if those mass values include the charge field mass and if they do then they are time dependent).

The mainstream separate the linear velocity from mass, only because they can calculate the linear velocity (and had that before the concept of mass) but they don't know what mass is or where it comes from. They can see that there is more to a collision than just the linear velocity and have attached this to mass (yet another hole filled with a word and little more). If you subscribe to my idea of stacked spin velocities being the mass, then mass is velocity, expressed in a collision. What else could it be? Mass only effects velocity, so why not assume it is a velocity (or a few)? Of course, you can't make that connection without stacked spins since they provide a different kind of velocity than the linear version we are all used to.

So to be clear and try to clean up my mess, intrinsic mass, if it exists, is not time dependent and will not stretch by the linear velocity either. But if you are thinking of mass increase in a particle accelerator, then this is time dependent or more importantly, velocity dependent (which includes time inside of it). Of course, Miles has described this kind of mass increase as stacking more spins so that comes right back to my idea of stacked spins being the mass.

Good stuff, guys. I got this question the other day in an online debate with some of my good Facebook pals. An apologist asked why doubling the radius in the next stacked spin would increase the mass. I didn't have a great answer for him, except to point out that the proton was already considered more massive than the electron in the standard model and that's the data that shows a mass difference right there.

We know the proton is more massive. Is this because it has more velocity (non-linear) in the field, due to those additional spins? It collides with other particles with more strength in the field, relative to the electron, because it's harder for another particle to divert the proton from its path (unstack a spin)?

That's close to my theory. In any collision, and mass is only expressed in a collision, all of the velocities have to be taken into consideration so we must include the spin velocities. The mainstream fall back to momentum: p = mv. They don't know what that mass is, but they know they need it. Since v expresses the linear velocity, then m must express the spin velocity. To be more precise, m expresses the sum of spin velocities. Since mass is only expressed in a collision, and collisions are about velocities, then why not express mass as a velocity. Seems pretty straight forward to me but I haven't tried to play with the numbers. I find it difficult to sort through the mainstream mess. This is why I prefer to work from first principles so that I can skate right around their mess.

There are a few posts about my idea somewhere on this site. I can't remember which thread it is in though. It could be either the Atomic Viewer or Spin Sim threads.

That makes a tremendous amount of sense to me, and it solves several mysteries (from the standard model) at once. I've often been curious about how our quanta can leap into larger, higher states of energy and mass, even while being the same fundamental "particle". What that is made of, we don't know yet. It's a postulate. But given we have matter existing at all, it's really cool to unwind how it behaves. And this model is far more elegant and "sensical" than the standard ones, with all their fudgings and dodgings and probability clouds.

In other news, here's my latest video on Hydrogen, showing kinda how the electron gets pushed into the charge potential pole of the proton. I'm not happy with the Vimeo compression though, as it's darkened the ambient purple charge and the through-charge to the point of invisibility, nearly. I'm going to render it with larger particles and try again tonight.

I might try overlaying a screenshot of your Spin Sim app at the proton level as a texture map for my proton sphere, too. Might look cooler, or help visually explain that the proton isn't exactly a big yellow sphere. Hope you don't mind; your Spin Sim is still way beyond what I'm doing in Maya.

https://vimeo.com/206370190

I don't mind at all. I'll be amazed if it works.

I've been thinking of writing a shader that takes in the location of the particle and calculates the position of the BPhoton based on spin levels. If Maya gives you the power to set custom attributes for that shader, then you can use it.

I have all of the math already, just need to port it to a shader language (not sure if Maya uses GLSL, the OpenGL shader language, or Cs, the NVidia language but I do know that you can add custom shaders).

It will have to make some assumptions but I can produce an easy to use shader for a proton/electron type and another for the neutron/nectron type. Should make it simple for you to put them wherever you want them just by specifying the position and spin level parameters.

I already have charge emission shaders in Atomic Viewer, but that might be a bit hard to set up in Maya as you need a few values per charge photon. That's easy to do in a programming language but maybe not so easy in a UI. Scripting would help there.

Here is that link to my spin as mass theory: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t65-stacked-spin-breakthrough#600

There is some really good stuff in that thread.

Making a bit of progress here. Bear with me: I know the charge profiles for these are all wrong, as they're only emitting spherically and not recycling in this demonstration, and there's no atomic spin involved just yet. But I was able to create repulsions and almost build the alpha using dynamics alone, no animation tricks.

https://vimeo.com/208245448



A lot of refining left to do, including getting the numbers precise and importing our actual stacked spins to replace the spherical particles I'm showing. Guess I'm just excited since this is what I've been trying at for some time, now. The N pole electron for example isn't emitting as much as the S pole, but I wanted to share this and get some feedback anyway.

.
Jared, Here's my response to your request for feedback (with caveat more needs to be done):

Nice overall effect, surprising what a little motion can do. First time I saw it my stomach contracted along with the protons; yeah, yeah, and wobbled with the neutrons.  

Ok, I see the electrons emitting blue charge.

Why do we see so much charge (magenta) originating at the two maximum vertical extents? Are those electrons there? I guess it makes sense if the maximum extents are the electrons associated with adjacent alphas, a vertical nuclear charge channel; I don’t imagine lone alphas encountering such strong currents otherwise.

Any defining equations you care to share, i.e. What are you using for repulsion?

When replacing charged particles with their B_photon spins, I would expect one to stop at the previous A spin. In which an electron sized B_photon moved through stacked spins within the proton (or neutron). Your thoughts?
.