Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Nevyn wrote:Actually, I just realised that everything is positioned by proton radii. That is, I use the proton radius as my unit of distance. I will have to see how to change that.

Yeah, that's how I ended up laying mine out too, but only for symmetry. Do we know how far apart those protons might be?



I have drawn the protons and neutrons in the first setup as being three proton/neutron radii (3r) apart. There's no reason for this really, just for ease of drawing. How far apart could those nucleons be? Is it possible that they're much further apart? Here at 6r, the vectors almost make sense - if we bring the neutrons in to 2r apart and if we give the through-charge a "width" or "cone" of motion. Which could make sense given that the "holes at the poles" aren't 1 photon wide by anyone's guess, but rather a potential opening for charge.



I really don't like the wobble idea, it seems like if protons were oscillating that far we would have some indication, fluxes in Helium that we don't get or something. I'll discard that idea for now, unless that combination makes sense to anyone else?

Nevyn, could it be the shape of those inner gaps causing the difference in proton and neutron charge? Note how the proton has kind of a clover-leaf look to it, whereas the neutron has more of an open if elongated oval. Just grasping at straws here. I think we're going to have to model these more rigorously (on my end, your models are fine) and see how photons behave given the shapes.

That's what I was thinking. If the wider gap causes more charge to go straight through that hole, then it wouldn't go out the equator (as much). Therefore, we get a reduced emission field and a beefed up through-charge stream. But evidence suggests that the neutrons through-charge stream is only 0.6ish of the protons so I don't know what to think at the moment.

No, I don't know how far apart the protons might be. In the very beginnings of AV, I just made them look like Miles diagrams. As images in this thread show, the neutrons were quite a ways out from the protons and the electrons were also inside of the stack (which I have now changed in AV). I used the size of the neutrons to judge the distance between the protons, since I was seeing the neutrons as pillars only. I certainly wasn't thinking about charge sharing at that stage. I don't think the protons can be too far apart if they are going to share charge along the proton stack axis.

Could the neutrons be 1r apart and the protons 2r apart? Or maybe 1.5r and 3r? That puts them all very close together but if they are sharing through-charge, then they have to be close. Maybe the neutrons need a little gap between them, 1r would put them side-by-side and that seems too close to avoid their BPhotons colliding. But we need to keep that through-charge vector vertical, as far as we can. Obviously there is some sideways charge but we can't have the through-charge spreading out (too much) once it leaves the proton.

Maybe what we need to solve this, or at least lead to a possible solution, is to look at the size of various atoms. If we can determine, with at least some degree of accuracy, the relative size differences and we know the nuclear makeup of the atoms, then we can possibly determine the height of a stack. The obvious atoms to look at a Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium, but I fear they are too small to get a good measurement of their size so it may be better to look at larger atoms. The noble gases might be good candidates as they will be appreciably larger than each other.

What if I am correct in that the neutron is the larger hole and that causes more through-charge than emission charge leading to an almost neutral neutron. But, because the emission is reduced, that causes a lower apparent attraction at the poles. Therefore, the neutrons charge strength can be lower than the proton while actually allowing (but not using) more through-charge than it.

Doing some digging to see if we can find any data on Helium's size, then maybe we can divide that by the proton or something.

"The diameter of the nucleus is between 10-15 and 10-14 m."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy122/Lecture_Notes/Chapter22/Chapter22.html

Oddly, they don't tell us which nucleus. And that's a pretty big gap to be missing real data, even at that level. I mean we knew the mainstream was pretty much Swiss cheese regarding this topic, but I thought I'd give that site a shot.

"The measured diameter of a proton is considered to be about 10-15 m."

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NucleonStructure.htm

That's a QCD site, so we already know they're full of it. Not helpful.

"Protons inside a nucleus are bound to each other via the Strong Nuclear Force carried by the Gluons. This is the strongest of the four fundamental forces. That's why they stay there against their repulsive forces. But for the strong nuclear force to exist, there is one condition to be satisfied. This is the distance threshold. It is a range of (0.8 x 10 raised to -15 to 4.2 x 10 raised to -15) for the strong nuclear force. So the protons too exist within a similar range."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-distance-between-two-protons-inside-a-nucleus

And that's from Quora, which is supposed to be kind of an authority on these kinds of things. Gluons?

"The nucleus of a helium atom contains 2 protons that are approximately 1fm apart. How much work must be done by an external agent to bring the two protons from an infinite separation to a separation of 1fm. The answer should be in pico-joules.
1fm= 1x10^-15 meters
Possibly could we use the equations U= K q1q2/r^2 and F=qE"

http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/nucleus-helium-atom-contains-2-protons-areapproximately-1fm-apart-much-work-must-done-exte-q208605

So there we have it. Nobody's actually measured it to be 1fm, but I suppose we can divide that pretty much fictitious answer by the radius of the proton...

"Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a physical size, though not a definite one; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

So they're basically just over one proton apart, in the mainstream answer. I don't find any value in these answers anymore, and they don't help us here at all. Maybe someone else can find some better answers?

Nevyn wrote:What if I am correct in that the neutron is the larger hole and that causes more through-charge than emission charge leading to an almost neutral neutron. But, because the emission is reduced, that causes a lower apparent attraction at the poles. Therefore, the neutrons charge strength can be lower than the proton while actually allowing (but not using) more through-charge than it.

That's a fine idea. I hadn't even thought about why the neutron had less charge, but that's a great way to look at it. Also helps with my charge models in Maya, since I can model that effect pretty easily.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that the magnetic moment of the neutron, which Miles used to get that 0.6 figure, is measured on a lone neutron (or a heap of them and averaged). But we want to know what it can do inside of a stack as well. In that case, it may actually allow more charge through itself than in the ambient field of the Earth alone. We shouldn't assume that the 0.6 value applies all the time, in any situation.

Alphas
- Did yous say it was Miles' Deuterium paper in which he started discussing and diagramming neutron through-charge?
- Initially, his alpha model looked like a couple compact disk protons spinning with two rubber ball neutrons between them.
- The neutrons were there to help stabilize the protons, weren't they?
- For stability, the neutrons need to be as far from the center as possible while remaining between the disks.
- For through-charge they need to be as near the center as possible.
- So what's more important: stability or through-charge?
- Would the alpha protons be unstable without neutrons between them?
- If they would still be stable, then the neutrons could be touching at the center.
- But then why wouldn't one neutron work better than two?
- Because the through-charge could go in a straighter line.
- And if two neutrons would be needed, why wouldn't they line up in single file between the protons, instead of side-by-side, so they could both receive and emit all of the protons' through-charge?

Protons
- Jared's idea about the sea of photons within a proton is something sort of new to work with.
- Miles' diagram just has them entering at the pole, then curving and exiting at the equator.
- Jared's isn't way different from one that I played with a few years ago.
- I figured 2 photons that happen to travel very close together could have a soft collision and stick together due to the lower pressure of moving objects.
- Each doubling of photons would be stacks, like stacked spins.
- They would tend to form disks because of centrifugal force.
- That model was pretty good for explaining proton mass and emission.
- But I wasn't able to figure out neutrons, so I didn't pursue that idea.

Nectrons
- If we're discussing neutrons here, should we discuss nectrons as well?
- Miles hasn't picked up on that term yet, has he?
- Since half of electrons should be nectrons, how would they affect anything?
- I think one of you guys, Nevyn I think, said once that nectrons and electrons might form tiny Alphas or Atoms etc.
- Could nectrons or tiny alphas help with the big alpha model?
- I guess nectrons would be hard to detect, since they'd be more neutral or less emissive than electrons.

Pressure
- I want to pressure you guys to explain what's wrong with the idea of pressure for the microcosm.
- Photons have mass, therefore they have force and pressure.
- Would not the poles of particles have low pressure as photons are emitted from their equators?
- Obviously the equators have high pressure, which is what Miles says is what causes repulsion between particles.
- Nevyn says pressure implies smaller particles than photons. How so?
- And even if it does, what's wrong with that? There are already many sizes of photons.
- What's wrong with having one or more levels smaller than IR photons?
- Aren't radio photons already smaller, by the way?

PS, Nevyn, the idea of a bigger hole in the neutron sounds kind of promising, but is it certain that the reversed z-spin or something produces a bigger hole? I don't even have a fuzzy idea what the numerous spin levels make a particle look like.

PPS, Jared, do you trust the mainstream's measurements of nuclei, since Miles said particles are hundreds of times larger than conventionally stated?

I have no problem with the concept of pressure, so long as it's properly applied. In these cases, it's not, as I'll try to show here.

Lloyd K wrote:- Photons have mass, therefore they have force and pressure.

That doesn't follow. Mass alone doesn't imply force or pressure.

F = ma
Force = mass*acceleration

You can't have force without accelerating the mass. A velocity is not an acceleration, you see. Photons have mass and velocity, but not (necessarily) an acceleration. The have energy, yes, but energy isn't the same as force. In a non-accelerating collision, energy is transferred via the velocities and vectors. In an accelerating collision, energy is transferred and then over time more energy is transferred - even if that time interval is very small. We can think of "force" as "change in energy", in a similar way that "acceleration" is a "change in velocity."

p = F/A
pressure = Force / Area

Since we don't have a force to work with in our photons, we don't have pressure. We do have a surface are of the B-photon, but still no force or pressure out of hand. This could however come into play when determining the actual collision strengths and vectors, but not necessarily.

Now let's say we accelerate the photon, either by gravity or expansion or some other mechanism (such as a laser). Then we have force, and then we could have pressure. But I don't think that's what we're studying here regarding the stacked spins and the neutron.

Lloyd K wrote:- For stability, the neutrons need to be as far from the center as possible while remaining between the disks.

You know, I've never been able to see how the neutrons as pillars add to the stability, despite Mathis's claim and our discussions. How would charge going up that far away from the protons add stability to the protons? It seems like the neutron's polar charge would only scatter the proton's equatorial charge, but that wouldn't affect the proton itself since it's too far away. And despite us drawing it as a disc, the proton isn't a disc so there's no torque we can apply to the proton by pushing its equatorial charge around. It's post-hoc.

Lloyd K wrote:- Would the alpha protons be unstable without neutrons between them?
- If they would still be stable, then the neutrons could be touching at the center.
- But then why wouldn't one neutron work better than two?
- Because the through-charge could go in a straighter line.

No, He3 is a stable element, it's just not produced nearly as often in fusion from stars. Per Mathis's Deuterium and Tritium paper:



http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf

That one makes clean sense, as does his model of Deuterium. It's the alpha that has us confuzzled, and which is making us try to understand the neutron better to see how it could fit into the given charge streams. It's kind of a mess but I think we're making some progress! Keep at it.

Alphas

LloydK wrote:- Did yous say it was Miles' Deuterium paper in which he started discussing and diagramming neutron through-charge?

I think it was that one but I haven't checked. The image is in one of the posts above.

LloydK wrote:- Initially, his alpha model looked like a couple compact disk protons spinning with two rubber ball neutrons between them.

The proton was never described as a spinning disc, only diagrammed as a disc and the spinning was always on the charge particles, not the disc.

LloydK wrote:- The neutrons were there to help stabilize the protons, weren't they?

Yes, they were called support columns in the first papers about proton stacks.

LloydK wrote:- For stability, the neutrons need to be as far from the center as possible while remaining between the disks.

Not necessarily, although I shared that view up until recently.

LloydK wrote:- For through-charge they need to be as near the center as possible.

Yes, definitely.

LloydK wrote:- So what's more important: stability or through-charge?

Both and you can have both by realising that the through-charge connections provide the stability and support. When you think of the protons emission as a disc you get into this predicament. You see the neutrons as holding up the discs. But when you see the disc in its proper form, a collection of individual particles, you realise that there is no solidity to that disc. There is also no connection back to the proton that emitted it. If the disc is not solid and not connected to the proton, then a neutron on the outer edges can not provide any support.

LloydK wrote:- Would the alpha protons be unstable without neutrons between them?

Yes. I think they could hold if the through-charge is strong enough, but that would probably require some sort of electric current rather than the Earth's ambient field.

LloydK wrote:- If they would still be stable, then the neutrons could be touching at the center.

No, I don't think they could touch when in a stable stack. If 2 neutrons touch, then their BPhotons have collided which means they may strip their outer spins. Of course, it does depend on the spin direction of these neutrons and if they are spinning opposite ways, then they can touch because there is no relative difference between them. There will always be differences though. To be totally opposite each other, every single spin level must be the opposite of the other. Possible, but unlikely.

LloydK wrote:- But then why wouldn't one neutron work better than two?
- Because the through-charge could go in a straighter line.
- And if two neutrons would be needed, why wouldn't they line up in single file between the protons, instead of side-by-side, so they could both receive and emit all of the protons' through-charge?

One neutron would not provide any structural support and the protons may as well get rid of it and just work together. It is easier to balance 2 balls than 3, although still near impossible. Even worse if you put the neutrons in line with the protons and are trying to balance 4 balls.

How they provide that support is still experimental.

With the neutrons side-by-side, the stack spreads out its mass, providing a more balanced structure. This alone may be the reason it is more stable than the other configurations.

Nectrons

LloydK wrote:- If we're discussing neutrons here, should we discuss nectrons as well?

We know next to nothing about them and I just assume they are either very similar to a neutron, just scaled down, or they are so different that I can not have any confidence in any ideas I may have about them. We're still trying to figure out the neutron and once we do, it will be easier to theorize about the nectron.

LloydK wrote:- Miles hasn't picked up on that term yet, has he?

No, he hasn't mentioned them at all.

LloydK wrote:- Since half of electrons should be nectrons, how would they affect anything?

I wouldn't rush to guess how many there must be but if I did have to give a figure, I would say one third of them might be nectrons on the Earth.

LloydK wrote:- I think one of you guys, Nevyn I think, said once that nectrons and electrons might form tiny Alphas or Atoms etc.

Yes, I have theorized about them using the work of Ken Shoulders as a background. If electrons can form stacks, then I assume that nectrons would be performing the task of a neutron in a proton stack.

LloydK wrote:- Could nectrons or tiny alphas help with the big alpha model?

Yes and no. They likely match the big model, so if we did know how the little model works then we would know more about the big model. However, the little model is, well, little. So it is much more difficult to measure and test and the big model is already very hard to test.

Pressure

LloydK wrote:- I want to pressure you guys to explain what's wrong with the idea of pressure for the microcosm.

I think you are thinking pressure when sometimes it is just force. Pressure is force but force is not pressure. So let's define pressure.

Pressure: continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something in contact with it.

We are talking about the quantum world and we believe in a mechanical universe so we will dispense with the term 'continuous' and replace it with 'rate of'. For us it means a rate of collisions. A force is one collision, a continuous force is a rate of collisions. Which means that the derivative of continuous force, is force, for all you calculus fans out there.

Because the BPhoton is the smallest of things, it can't have the idea of pressure because it only has the idea of collision. Pressure requires many small entities colliding with one larger entity. It includes the idea of mass, hidden away in there. It is hard to see but pressure implies resistance. You can't have a continuous force if the target shoots off after the first few hits. So the target must have considerably more mass than the particles that are hitting it. Since the BPhoton is the smallest of entities, there is nothing to cause pressure to it. Any collision is just a collision, no matter how convoluted they are. So smaller photons can cause pressure on larger particles like electrons and protons, because of the mass difference, but small photons, and maybe all photons, can not have pressure applied to them.

LloydK wrote:- Photons have mass, therefore they have force and pressure.

Photons have mass, therefore they can apply force and can have force applied to them.

Many photons together, can apply pressure to some target but can not have pressure applied to them.

LloydK wrote:- Would not the poles of particles have low pressure as photons are emitted from their equators?

Large particles like electrons and protons, not photons.

LloydK wrote:- Obviously the equators have high pressure, which is what Miles says is what causes repulsion between particles.

No, they have high force. Pressure requires some target to apply that force to, so a proton does not have pressure but can apply it since it can supply a continuous force.

LloydK wrote:- Nevyn says pressure implies smaller particles than photons. How so?

Continuous force requires resistance to that force so implies a large mass difference between target and bullets.

LloydK wrote:- And even if it does, what's wrong with that? There are already many sizes of photons.
- What's wrong with having one or more levels smaller than IR photons?
- Aren't radio photons already smaller, by the way?

You can only go so low and I don't see any need, or evidence, for anything below a BPhoton. Yes, there are plenty of photons below the IR, but we need a large mass difference to apply pressure.

LloydK wrote:PS, Nevyn, the idea of a bigger hole in the neutron sounds kind of promising, but is it certain that the reversed z-spin or something produces a bigger hole? I don't even have a fuzzy idea what the numerous spin levels make a particle look like.

It is as certain as SpinSim is correct. Which is to say, it's as good as I can do with my understanding of Miles work and how I have implemented that. I don't see any other way for spins to stack and what I have created has allowed me to theorize with decent results. I'm not going to say that it is perfect or even correct, just that it is a logical implementation of stacked spins. If stacked spins work as I have implemented, then just a reversed top level spin will produce the forms shown above.

Sorry to be 'that guy' again, but

Jared Magneson wrote:
F = ma
Force = mass*acceleration

You can't have force without accelerating the mass. A velocity is not an acceleration, you see. Photons have mass and velocity, but not (necessarily) an acceleration. The have energy, yes, but energy isn't the same as force. In a non-accelerating collision, energy is transferred via the velocities and vectors. In an accelerating collision, energy is transferred and then over time more energy is transferred - even if that time interval is very small. We can think of "force" as "change in energy", in a similar way that "acceleration" is a "change in velocity."

That bloody equation should be destroyed. I don't care who wrote it, F=ma is a deceitful little bitch. It is true, which makes it all the more dangerous.

That equation is never used in any simulation of a collision unless you are dealing with one very large mass and one very small mass and therefore you choose to ignore the small mass but actually apply all force to that small mass. Such as a satellite orbiting the Earth. It is not applicable at the quantum level and must be expanded into its true form: F = m1v1 + m2v2. This clearly shows that 2 objects are involved and we actually have velocities and no accelerations as input. The use of the term acceleration relates to the change in velocity, the v1 + v2 part combined into a, not that you need an acceleration to calculate the resultant force. The main reason this equation exists is that they are working backwards. They have the results, so acceleration, and want to know the forces involved. Simulators work the opposite way. They have velocities and need to find the forces.

That is a very nice breakdown of Force, Nevyn. I completely agree with it. And in most cases regarding testing and theory, we don't see an actual acceleration in play (such as shooting a proton at a Helium atom, for example) since that proton couldn't be accelerating once it leaves the launcher. So your description makes sense to me.

[L:] So what's more important: stability or through-charge?
N: Both and you can have both by realising that the through-charge connections provide the stability and support. ... there is no solidity to that [proton] disc. ... then a neutron on the outer edges can not provide any support.
L: That's what I tried to say recently.

[L:] Would the alpha protons be unstable without neutrons between them?
N: Yes. I think they could hold if the through-charge is strong enough, but that would probably require some sort of electric current rather than the Earth's ambient field.
L: How can neutrons add through-charge? I thought they were passive.

[L:] ... the neutrons could be touching at the center.
N: ... if they are spinning opposite ways, then they can touch because there is no relative difference between them. There will always be differences though. To be totally opposite each other, every single spin level must be the opposite of the other. Possible, but unlikely.
L: Why can't one neutron be upside-down to the other? Why would their inner spins have to be opposite? I thought only the outer spin mattered.

N: The proton was never described as a spinning disc, only diagrammed as a disc and the spinning was always on the charge particles, not the disc.
L: In the previous answer you said neutrons are spinning and I thought Miles compared protons to lawn sprinklers where centrifugal force pushes the photons out equatorially. I don't see how the proton could be not spinning, if its resident photon is maneuvering through stacked spins. Each stack, x, y, z etc is spinning.

N: It is easier to balance 2 balls than 3 [or 4: protons & neutron/s]
L: Does gravity affect the stability of particles that much?

N: With the neutrons side-by-side, the stack spreads out its mass, providing a more balanced structure. This alone may be the reason it is more stable than the other configurations.
L: A third neutron should make it even more stable, but don't the third ones get kicked out or something?

N: You can't have a continuous force if the target [photon] shoots off after the first few hits. ... Since the BPhoton is the smallest of entities, there is nothing to cause pressure to it. ... small photons, and maybe all photons, can not have pressure applied to them.
L: Pressure is force/area. Since photons have area, anything they collide with applies the same pressure on each one of them as they apply to it. If there's a sea of photons in each particle, then there should be plenty of collisions within all particles. Each collision should apply a momentary pressure. Right?

N: Yes, there are plenty of photons below the IR, but we need a large mass difference to apply pressure.
L: unless the photons are confined, like in a particle?

N: F=ma is a deceitful little bitch ... its true form: F = m1v1 + m2v2
L: So force = momentum. Momentum/area = pressure. Right?

PS, I found the lawn sprinkler comparison at http://milesmathis.com/stack.html
He said: "The neutron is like the lawn sprinkler spinning, but without the water. The proton is like the lawn sprinkler plus the water being emitted."

LloydK wrote:L: How can neutrons add through-charge? I thought they were passive.

The neutrons do not add the charge, an external electric current is required if there are no neutrons as that through-charge is the only thing holding the stack together. The neutrons provide stability in a different way.

LloydK wrote:L: Why can't one neutron be upside-down to the other? Why would their inner spins have to be opposite? I thought only the outer spin mattered.

Because all motion must be taken into consideration, not just the top level spin. You can get most of the answer with only the top level spin, but not the full answer. Basically, at any dt, the BPhoton is moving in a certain direction that is the sum of all of its spin vectors (and linear velocity but let's leave that out of it). If any, even the very first axial spin, is different, then that motion will be different.

LloydK wrote:L: In the previous answer you said neutrons are spinning and I thought Miles compared protons to lawn sprinklers where centrifugal force pushes the photons out equatorially. I don't see how the proton could be not spinning, if its resident photon is maneuvering through stacked spins. Each stack, x, y, z etc is spinning.

You are mixing a few different concepts together but the stew doesn't taste so good. The proton's BPhoton is spinning, its charge is spinning, but the proton itself is not spinning. That is because the proton includes the idea of spin in its definition, so that spin is sort of inside of the proton. If the proton itself were spinning, then that would be a top level axial spin and I don't allow that and no-one has provided any convincing evidence for them. Not even Miles.

LloydK wrote:L: Does gravity affect the stability of particles that much?

I wasn't specifically meaning gravity, but that would also provide instability to such an arrangement. But even just forces felt from other particles would be enough to topple the stack. Even just the motion of each proton would be enough to cause instability since there is nothing to stop if from whatever motion it has.

LloydK wrote:L: A third neutron should make it even more stable, but don't the third ones get kicked out or something?

Maybe, maybe not. Two neutrons is enough to provide stability and also provides a way to split the 2 charge streams into separate paths. Three just complicates that. I won't rule it out, but haven't found any use for it either.

LloydK wrote:L: Pressure is force/area. Since photons have area, anything they collide with applies the same pressure on each one of them as they apply to it. If there's a sea of photons in each particle, then there should be plenty of collisions within all particles. Each collision should apply a momentary pressure. Right?

No, you are using pressure and force as synonyms, but they are not. Pressure is the application of a continuous force on some target. The math doesn't say it all, and this is a good reason why it is dangerous to only follow the math. You have to know when and where a given equation is applicable and the definitions give you that information but the equation does not.

A collision does not create pressure. A continuous series of collisions does create pressure and to have a continuous series of collisions the target must remain within the field applying that force. And I also should add that the target must have a velocity below that of which is colliding with it, or there would be no collision and therefore no force and no pressure.

When 2 BPhotons collide, they shoot off in different directions, never to meet again. Both particles are travelling at c so they are not going to apply pressure, only force, because they can't provide the continuous part of the definition of pressure.

LloydK wrote:L: unless the photons are confined, like in a particle?

But even in that scenario, the photons are not feeling pressure, they are applying it and each photon only provides force, not pressure. The sum of many photons providing force is pressure. It is the particle that feels the pressure which leads us back to the need for a large mass difference.

LloydK wrote:L: So force = momentum. Momentum/area = pressure. Right?

Not quite. Force is the sum of the momentum of 2 (or more) objects.

Jared Magneson wrote:That is a very nice breakdown of Force, Nevyn. I completely agree with it. And in most cases regarding testing and theory, we don't see an actual acceleration in play (such as shooting a proton at a Helium atom, for example) since that proton couldn't be accelerating once it leaves the launcher. So your description makes sense to me.

I was a bit hesitant to post that. I believe it, but it is a bit controversial. You hear about how force requires acceleration all the time but when you get down to the lowest of levels, we find there is no acceleration. If anything, the acceleration is the result of force, not the impetus to it. This is yet another case of listening to the math instead of the physics. However, the equation does have some uses, so we can't get rid of it, just realise that it has no application at the quantum level.

The way I see it, acceleration is not real. Things can be accelerated, but no object actually has a property that is acceleration. But an object does have a property for velocity because that velocity is applied at every dt. An acceleration, which is just a change in velocity, only happens during a collision. Acceleration requires two different velocities, belonging to two different particles, and is just the change in the velocity of each particle as a result of that collision. So before the collision, each particle has some velocity and after the collision each particle has a different velocity, but neither of them have an acceleration even though they were accelerated. It is tricky.

Look at it this way, if there was only one particle in the entire universe, can it have an acceleration? No, but it can have a velocity, even though you can't actually tell if it does have one or not (because you have to compare it to another particle to determine if it is moving with respect to the particle, that is why the measurement of velocity is relative, even though the actual velocity is not).

I believe that you will get much further in physics if you look at these low level definitions and learn when and where to use them rather than looking at high-level abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are good for quick communication when both parties understand what they mean, but are not good for working out how things work. This is where amateur physicists lose the plot. They don't really understand what is beneath the concepts they are using and just try to plug different things together. It doesn't work though. You have to unravel everything at the lowest levels to get anywhere, which is also why mainstream physics has lost the plot. As Miles has shown, you have to fix the problems at the base level, not just tack on a heap of new math.

I'm sure some will discount my analysis here, and maybe Miles' works by extension, because I seem to be arguing with Newton. How presumptuous of me to think that I could take on a master! But the way I see it, I am just taking his equation back a step and showing what is actually useful to physics at the quantum level. It's the same with Einstein. His work has been so corrupted and his statements taken so far out of context that they don't really understand what he was saying. They didn't in his day and they still don't because they choose to believe in, or at least promote, the spooky mystery instead of the physics.

Even if I one day think that Miles' work is all wrong, I will still be grateful for him showing me how to get below everything and how to think about the concepts. Miles has allowed me to actually do physics. Before that I was just another tinkerer, trying to tie everyone else's work into something I want, but it doesn't work. Now, I just try to get below it, get down to the point where we only have position, size and velocity. Everything else is just an abstract concept.

I have so far used a very philosophical approach to this pressure business but the equations have been mentioned so I want to touch on that a bit.

Pressure = Force / Surface Area

You have to ask what each of those components applies to. Where does the force come from? What surface are we talking about? Who has the pressure? You don't know an equation until you know where its parts come from and what its result applies to.

There are always two things (in a very abstract way) involved in pressure. There is that which is supplying the force and there is that which is feeling the force. In the quantum realm, we actually have many, many little particles providing the force. Never just one for that would require that the particle collide, move away, turn around and move back towards the target again for another collision. That doesn't make any sense. So what we actually have is some larger entity that is emitting these little particles continuously. This could be a proton or an atom or something much larger.

So that provides the force, but what about the surface area? Who's surface is that? It is the target's surface, not the little particles imparting the force. The target is what is being collided with and it is the target that is feeling all of that force. Yes, each little particle will feel an equal and opposite force in any collision, but they don't feel all of the forces from all of the particles. They do not feel pressure. Therefore, the pressure belongs to the target.

Let's look at a real world example to solidify this. A gas is put into a cylinder for storage. That gas is inserted until some pressure limit is reached. What would happen if we just kept inserting more gas? The cylinder will break and all of that gas will escape. The cylinder has the pressure limit, not the gas. The gas is providing the force, but it is not feeling all of the force, only the cylinder is. The cylinder also provides the surface area for that gas to collide with. We measure the cylinder to get the surface area and we measure the gas to get a temperature which gives us a force. Average that force over the cylinders surface area and we get the pressure exerted on the cylinder by the gas. Notice that pressure is an average. That is important. There can be sections of the cylinder that feel more or less force at any given time, but overall, it is the same pressure.

Does that help? Am I making sense? Just tell me to stop. Please? Someone? Anyone?

.
This time I’ll say it. Everyone, great discussion. There’s good stuff here.

Nevyn, You’d make a great physics professor. Your pressure description makes perfect sense. F = m1v1 + m2v2, acceleration as the sum of velocities, your explanation is wonderful. Going toe-to-toe with Newton indeed. I need to give this discussion more thought. Like curved motion, an acceleration is the sum of orthogonal velocities.

Jared, Your diagram shows the alpha more clearly. The two protons’ 30deg emission lines actually cage the neutrons, they're safe and protected between the protons; where they, in turn, help protect the exposed proton-to-proton through charge currents. I’ve thought about it a little longer since Nevyn asked me above; I now believe that the neutrons will feed from proton emissions, aligning their poles parallel to the protons, much as Jared's diagram shows, maybe closer together. The Neutrons have freedom to react somewhat independently from the protons, with the capacity to handle cross currents, adding to the alpha’s structural advantage.
 
Hoo Ahh
.

Sense
N: Am I making sense? Just tell me to stop.
L: I'm picking up a few things. Instead of stopping, you could try simplifying your statements. The long version is good to start with. And then you could add a short version. That might help clarify. You show a lot of self-confidence, which is okay, but it doesn't add any clarity for me.

It doesn't make sense to me to say that photons and particles feel anything. Any collision requires two bodies. Both bodies are "equally" affected. I would think that, as per the laws of motion, the momentum of each body will be equal, but obviously that wouldn't be the case if one of the bodies had zero velocity. Anyway, a large mass with small vector velocity colliding with a small mass of any non-zero vector velocity will, I think, impart a larger vector velocity to the small mass. The small mass will also impart a small vector velocity to the large mass.

Force
I don't think it's helpful to limit the definition of force to a steady stream of collisions of photons with particles etc. Any force is taken over a dt, increment of time. A limited number of photons collide with the particle in that dt. Dividing the dt by the number of photon collisions in that dt should give the same force per collision as the steady force. Since photons have area, there's a force per area on each photon and particle, which is pressure. I assume that the relevant area is that which comes in direct contact during collision, which area will be the same for both bodies.

Q
My biggest question is how a particle's one resident photon can corrall an endless slew of B-photons into polar and equatorial charge streams, while all said photons are moving at the same light speed. I.e., how can one body go fast enough to corrall a bunch of other similar size bodies when the one is going the same speed as the others?

Lloyd K wrote:Q
My biggest question is how a particle's one resident photon can corrall an endless slew of B-photons into polar and equatorial charge streams, while all said photons are moving at the same light speed. I.e., how can one body go fast enough to corrall a bunch of other similar size bodies when the one is going the same speed as the others?

That is a great question, Lloyd, and one we're really hoping to dissect and model (or model, then dissect, as the case may be).

I think what's happening is that the stacking of spins increase the radius and thus mass of that proton or neutron's B-photon to the point where it's able to "brush off" most collisions itself, with much smaller and less energetic B-photons (charge). They don't generally change it's path, whereas it will always change theirs in a collision. Most if not all collisions happen at glancing blows - rarely are any head-on, so the proton/neutron is able to "plow" through the sea of photons around it, almost churning them up as it goes. An analogy only, both the sea and the churning. But the proton's B-photon "core" has so much more intertia, it's not easily deterred. Some of those photons will even assist or augment the larger's motion as well, though not many. They'd have to be colliding with it along it's travel-path, but that is certainly possible since they're going so much faster.

Most collisions will not cause any spin-stripping or spin-stacking at this point, which is why the proton is so stable and larger particles are not. And also why the neutron is so much less stable - because it's not emitting equatorial charge, it is more open to hits from the sides which can strip it of a spin. I think this is why the lone neutron "decays" in 10-15 minutes outside the nucleus. Eventually, a cluster of enough incoming charge photons smacks it off course. Or it may only be a couple X-rays or gammas, for example, which are less dense compared to infrared charge but certainly exist in some quantity over any given timeframe.

I'm almost at a decent point to be modeling these effects, but I'll need a lot of merciless correction and input from you guys to get the actual and relative numbers right. The mechanism is working, I just need to get the sub-mechanism working properly. I'm talking specifically about the simulation technique I was using in my last video, here again for quick reference:

https://vimeo.com/208245448

While that diagram is incorrect, the mechanism holding the protons and neutrons and electrons apart is close to correct. All I really need to do is replace the particles, big and small, with their spin-stacked versions and let 'er rip for a day or two in processing. That's where I'm stuck at currently, getting those particles to behave like our spin-stacked photons and not just like little spheres with different masses and colors.

Technical note: I'm stuck using the CPU for this simulation, which is a real pain in my ass. But my CPUs are pretty beefy and I'm light on regular work lately, so even if my simulations take two or three days to render out it should be worth doing. I really wish I had GPU acceleration for particles inside Maya, but I haven't found a solution for that yet.

And then we would come to the actual quantities of charge, in the volume near the alpha. The quantities per second. As a guess, I imagine I'll only be able to process 1 billionth of the actual numbers there, so I'll have to tweak my collisions somewhat to account for that. I hate doing that, because that's how mistakes are made (fudging), but that will be a big bottleneck for me.

Guys whenever I see a mention of "lightening" or "elves" this guy is good to keep in mind when thinking in terms of Mathis. This is a different from CC's filaments. Dr. K is pretty classic but does point out contradictions in classical theory:

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/filament.html#2

2.0 Nature of the filaments

Let us first analyze some terrestrial filaments.

The electron beam in the TV is a filament of electrons. The three electron guns have a hole of a diameter of 2 mm each. But the electron beam would produce a very blurred white-black picture on the screen with a spot of this diameter (all the three phosphors of the screen would light contemporarily given white light together). Moreover, the projection onto the fare screen would enlarge this spot about 20 times. But in reality, this spot has a diameter of only 0.2 mm due to the attraction among the negative currents in this electron beam. This attraction is much stronger than the very strong electrostatic repulsion among the electrons in the beam. The electrons - injected into the big volume of the screen-valve - do not explode electrostatically and do not fill the whole big volume, but form a thin beam which has a smaller diameter (0.2 mm) than the emitting surface (2 mm). The negative currents in the beam look for the minimal cross section. This is the circular cross section.

Similarly, the lightning is also a filament of a circular cross section of a diameter of about 0.1m. Also the lightning has a much smaller diameter than the charged cloud which emits it. The strong electrostatic repulsion among the huge number of electrons is overbalanced by the much stronger attraction among the electric currents. Only the movement of electric charges produces the filament, if the lightning would stop, it would have immediately a very big and exploding volume of a diameter of many kilometers due to the electrostatic repulsion.

Each spark - of the e.g. test-plant for electric insulators - is an electric filament of a circular cross section. Stronger currents cause thinner sparks due to the stronger attraction among the negative electric charges in motion.
An ion-beam in CERN is a positive filament. The ions do not explode electrostatically, they remain in a narrow beam of a circular cross section. This ion-beam has no recombination-light because no electrons are available.
Extraterrestrial filaments
Fig. 2 Solar post flare loops in red are emitted by round active areas which are shown in white

Fig. 2 shows post flare loops of the Sun from a movie taken in the light of hydrogen alpha. ( A very detailed explanation was shown by Koertvelyessy 1999 April). The active areas are white due to their strong recombination-light. Note that these active areas are round, nearly circular - not long filaments of a dynamo. They emit the loops of much smaller diameter and weaker intensity in the perpendicular direction to the surface. These observations are inconsistent with the suspposition of a solar dynamo which should somehow produce magnetic tubes which surface and appear as active areas or filaments. The filaments seem to have a circular cross section otherwise their observable diameter would change.

LloydK wrote:Sense
N: Am I making sense? Just tell me to stop.
L: I'm picking up a few things. Instead of stopping, you could try simplifying your statements. The long version is good to start with. And then you could add a short version. That might help clarify. You show a lot of self-confidence, which is okay, but it doesn't add any clarity for me.

Okay, I'll try to break it down a bit.

I'm glad it looks like I am confident, and I am, but there is always doubt in there somewhere, especially when I am questioning the likes of Newton. That confidence comes from working at low levels. When you break it all down to position and velocity, things become so much clearer. Seriously, all physics should be at this level and abstract concepts only allowed when the real motions are understood. That is why Miles goes on about the abstractions getting in the way and cloaking real understanding.

LloydK wrote:It doesn't make sense to me to say that photons and particles feel anything. Any collision requires two bodies. Both bodies are "equally" affected. I would think that, as per the laws of motion, the momentum of each body will be equal, but obviously that wouldn't be the case if one of the bodies had zero velocity. Anyway, a large mass with small vector velocity colliding with a small mass of any non-zero vector velocity will, I think, impart a larger vector velocity to the small mass. The small mass will also impart a small vector velocity to the large mass.

I don't mean that particles actually feel anything, not in the human sense of feel, I am just using that term to say that they receive a force. It is just an artistic expression.

No, both bodies are not equally affected. Each particle is affected according to the mass distribution between them. That is why F = m1v1 + m2v2, we have to scale the velocity by the mass so that the larger mass affects the smaller mass more than the smaller mass affects the larger mass. Only if the two masses are equal would the particles be equally affected (assuming the same speed which we can in the quantum world). But I see that you reached that conclusion by the end of your paragraph. Maybe you were just trying to say that both particles are affected by a collision, not that they are affected in equal amounts. But you did quote equally, so it implies that you mean affected by an equal amount.

LloydK wrote:
Force
I don't think it's helpful to limit the definition of force to a steady stream of collisions of photons with particles etc. Any force is taken over a dt, increment of time. A limited number of photons collide with the particle in that dt. Dividing the dt by the number of photon collisions in that dt should give the same force per collision as the steady force. Since photons have area, there's a force per area on each photon and particle, which is pressure. I assume that the relevant area is that which comes in direct contact during collision, which area will be the same for both bodies.

That is not what I have done. I haven't limited force to a steady stream of collisions, I have shown that a continuous force is a steady stream of collisions. The steady stream represents the continuous part and the collision represents the force part. You seem to be forgetting about that continuous part. It is extremely important and is what differentiates pressure from force. Having a surface area and having a force is not enough to create pressure. You need to keep repeating that to provide the continuous nature of pressure. The repeating part also implies the large mass difference because if the target is roughly the same mass as the bullet, then it will not be there when the next round of fire comes because the first bullet has pushed it away.

It is very helpful to limit force to a collision between particles, because everything is made of those particles. Only the BPhoton exists. You, me, the computers we are using, the electrons, protons and neutrons that make them are all just BPhotons in various states. Therefore, the only thing that can collide is a BPhoton. Therefore, force is the collision of BPhotons. There is no other possibility.

LloydK wrote:
Q
My biggest question is how a particle's one resident photon can corrall an endless slew of B-photons into polar and equatorial charge streams, while all said photons are moving at the same light speed. I.e., how can one body go fast enough to corrall a bunch of other similar size bodies when the one is going the same speed as the others?

I agree with you on this one. I don't think they do corral them inside of their spin volumes and I don't think that breaks the theory, either. Miles used that to explain the mass difference between the proton and neutron but there may be some other explanation. For example, I mentioned earlier (it may have been in the AV thread) that the neutron may emit charge that is anti to the ambient field and therefore its emission field may be diminished, compared to the proton, and that is why we think it is neutral. If that is the case, then the neutrons charge may not move off as quickly as a protons charge does and therefore we measure it as part of its mass. I'm not saying that is correct, but it may be a possibility.

I will have a think about how to describe pressure a bit better and get back to you. I probably won't have time tonight but will try to get something to you over the next couple of days. Keep reading what I have written above and it might fall into place for you. Sometimes I miss things on a first read and it might take a few more reads to get it all to sink in.

I think a big problem here is that there are multiple definitions and usages of the term pressure. Some of them are valid for us, some of them are not. When trying to understand anything in science, you must know the definitions of the terms being used. You can't assume you know what all words mean, especially if you are relying on the colloquial usage of a word. Even if you know a scientific definition for a term, that might not be what the author defines it as. That is why you hear of things like Riemannian geometry and Hilbert spaces. They are saying that I am using the Reimannian definitions of geometry or Hilbert's definitions of a space, etc.

You have to be aware of the players on the field. In our case, that is the BPhoton. There is nothing else.

You also have to be aware of the scale you are working at. Knowing your players will most likely tell you the scale. We are talking about the quantum world so we are at the lowest of all scales. There is nothing smaller.

Now you have to figure out what can happen to those players on that field. The rules of the game.

The definition of pressure that I wrote above is not my definition. I just searched for 'define pressure' and that was one of the answers. One of the more scientific answers. I think it is fairly good though, even if I object to the term continuous, I can define continuous in such a way that it makes sense. You may have gotten lost in my digression into replacing 'continuous' with 'rate of' as I did get a bit meta-physical. I was just trying to say that there is nothing that is continuous in physics so we need to replace it with a rate of some kind. As we are talking about pressure and therefore force, I replaced 'continuous force' with 'rate of collisions' in an attempt to show that it is many photons colliding over time that causes pressure.

That really is the crux of this issue. Pressure requires many collisions. We are talking about charge pressure so it requires many charge photons to collide with some target, over some time period, in order to call it pressure instead of just force.

One collision can impart force on another particle. Any particle.

Many collisions, over time, can impart pressure to another particle if and only if the target particle is more massive than the charge photons. This is required because if there is only a small mass difference, then the target will be given a lot of velocity, very quickly, and will therefore move away and out of reach of the source of pressure. If the target particle is the same size (or mass) as the charge photons, then it will only take one good hit and it has as much velocity as it can get, so no other charge photons are going to collide with it. If we don't have repeated collisions then we don't have pressure, only force.

Think of it this way, perhaps: What is pressing? A pressure requires a constant push, as opposed to a single collision which is over as soon as it happens. Pressure would be continuous pushes, and as Nevyn described the object being pushed would have to be large enough (have enough inertia) to resist that first push. One particle collision can't create pressure.

In this way, pressure isn't very helpful in our study of the neutron or the quantum arena. We're not that far along to be able to sum-over into pressures yet. We're still studying the initial fundamental motions. I daresay charge "pressure" may be keeping the nucleus together if we want to think of it like that, though. But I don't know if it helps us understand what makes a neutron a neutron. What is it about that last, reversed spin that causes such a difference between the neutron and the proton?

So far, Nevyn's two diagrams are the only chief difference we have. I'm still not that far in, as my older stacked-spin model became too cumbersome past four spins and had to be left behind. I'm still working on the new one.

Proposed Term
The photon of which a particle is made with stacked spins doesn't have a convenient accepted term to describe it, that I know of. So I propose that we find a good term for it. How about corephoton, as Jared hinted? And p-, n-, or e-corephoton for each particle?

Simulate Spins
J: ... we're really hoping to dissect and model....
L: Thanks for working on that. Do yous have a simulation of stacked spins yet? I think Miles' Superposition paper has someone's simulation of just the x-spin. Can you guys do the y- and z- spins on top of that? And do yous assume that the corephoton is always traveling at lightspeed?

Neutron Instability
J: ... the neutron is so much less stable - because it's not emitting equatorial charge, it is more open to hits from the sides which can strip it of a spin. I think this is why the lone neutron "decays" in 10-15 minutes outside the nucleus.
L: What I quoted here recently suggested that neutrons get absorbed by nitrogen air molecules. Is that plausible?

Magnetic Pinch
C: ... lightning has a much smaller diameter than the charged cloud which emits it. The strong electrostatic repulsion among the huge number of electrons is overbalanced by the much stronger attraction among the electric currents. Only the movement of electric charges produces the filament, if the lightning would stop, it would have immediately a very big and exploding volume of a diameter of many kilometers due to the electrostatic repulsion.
L: Charles explained the narrowing of filaments as due to the magnetic pinch effect, I think. He says in space ions tend to form filaments because when in a line of +-+-+- the like "charges" are shielded by opposite "charges". When filaments implode to form stars, the ions are separated by magnetism into separate streams.

Everything Is
N: It is very helpful to limit force to a collision between particles, because everything is made of those particles. Only the BPhoton exists. You, me, the computers we are using, the electrons, protons and neutrons that make them are all just BPhotons in various states.
L: No, caring is basic reality. Consciousness is part of caring. Without caring, nothing can exist. And nothing is known without consciousness and maybe nothing exists besides consciousness and caring. We try to understand physics etc because we care about it. Photons may be units of consciousness.

Collisions
N: Therefore, the only thing that can collide is a BPhoton. Therefore, force is the collision of BPhotons. There is no other possibility.
L: Setting philosophy aside, I agree that photon collisions are the only thing we know of so far and may be the only physical force. But there's still the matter of explaining how a molecular or crystal structure tags along when part of it has momentum imparted to it, such as by a bat hitting a ball.

Neutron Anti-Charge
N: ... the neutron may emit charge that is anti to the ambient field and therefore its emission field may be diminished, compared to the proton, and that is why we think it is neutral.
L: Where's that at on your list of things to simulate?

Pressure
As for pressure, some kind of pressure from photons or something must cause electrons to more toward proton polar holes and stuff like that, (including rubbed balloons attracting each other).

LloydK wrote:Proposed Term
The photon of which a particle is made with stacked spins doesn't have a convenient accepted term to describe it, that I know of. So I propose that we find a good term for it. How about corephoton, as Jared hinted? And p-, n-, or e-corephoton for each particle?

Yes it does, it is a BPhoton. You could say that a BPhoton does not have spin, and that is true, which is why I use the term BPhoton to mean the actual physical particle that is spinning. If I want to refer to the BPhoton with its spin then I call it a particle. But I don't mind if everyone wants to coin some new term for it. It can reduce confusion at times.

Strictly speaking, the BPhoton is the only particle. It is what deserves that name, but mainstream physics has called lots of things a particle and we are stuck with their shitty definitions, to a certain degree.

LloydK wrote:Simulate Spins
J: ... we're really hoping to dissect and model....
L: Thanks for working on that. Do yous have a simulation of stacked spins yet? I think Miles' Superposition paper has someone's simulation of just the x-spin. Can you guys do the y- and z- spins on top of that? And do yous assume that the corephoton is always traveling at lightspeed?

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/ - you can have up to 5 spin sets which expanded out looks like this:

[A, X, Y, Z], [A, X, Y, Z], [A, X, Y, Z], [A, X, Y, Z], [A, X, Y, Z]

Not only is the core photon traveling at c but it is also spinning at c in many different directions.

LloydK wrote:Everything Is
N: It is very helpful to limit force to a collision between particles, because everything is made of those particles. Only the BPhoton exists. You, me, the computers we are using, the electrons, protons and neutrons that make them are all just BPhotons in various states.
L: No, caring is basic reality. Consciousness is part of caring. Without caring, nothing can exist. And nothing is known without consciousness and maybe nothing exists besides consciousness and caring. We try to understand physics etc because we care about it. Photons may be units of consciousness.

Caring? Really? In a physics discussion? I don't even know what to do with that.

Caring is not basic reality. Caring is a human trait (or animal) and not one that is shared by all humans. Psychopaths don't care about anything, except maybe themselves and that's probably debatable. Extreme cases of Autism don't show caring qualities, are they not real? Caring isn't even on the same level as consciousness, it is quite a ways above it, and consciousness is so far above the quantum world that we are talking about that it shouldn't even enter the discussion.

In order for something to be considered conscious, it has to be alive. To be alive means to eat, excrete and react to the surrounding environment. Photons do not fit that description but I could argue that charged particles do. They eat the ambient charge field, they excrete a charge field and they can react to forces from the environment. And even that is a bit of a stretch because some people will interpret 'react to the surrounding environment' as making decisions and particles do not do that.

LloydK wrote:Collisions
N: Therefore, the only thing that can collide is a BPhoton. Therefore, force is the collision of BPhotons. There is no other possibility.
L: Setting philosophy aside, I agree that photon collisions are the only thing we know of so far and may be the only physical force. But there's still the matter of explaining how a molecular or crystal structure tags along when part of it has momentum imparted to it, such as by a bat hitting a ball.

We are trying to explain that. Trying to come up with ways for the proton stack to stick together, as a whole entity, which is the basis of how atoms and molecules stick together. Figure out one and you will be well on the way to figuring out the other. I think the through-charge streams are responsible for it but we still need to figure that out at a mechanical level.

LloydK wrote:Neutron Anti-Charge
N: ... the neutron may emit charge that is anti to the ambient field and therefore its emission field may be diminished, compared to the proton, and that is why we think it is neutral.
L: Where's that at on your list of things to simulate?

Not very high. It requires a true simulator which I have started to build but am still a long way off from have a working system. I need to figure out how collisions work with respect to stacked spins and that is proving as difficult as it sounds.

LloydK wrote:Pressure
As for pressure, some kind of pressure from photons or something must cause electrons to more toward proton polar holes and stuff like that, (including rubbed balloons attracting each other).

No, some kind of force is required, not pressure. You can think of it as pressure but you have to realise that it is the ambient field causing the pressure, not the particles themselves. Each particle can only provide force but the sum of particles could be called pressure. See how pressure is a level above force, the same way that force is a level above velocity and velocity is a level above position. Maybe I should provide a deeper description of what I mean by that.

You can't define pressure without first defining force.
You can't define force without first defining velocity (and some would say mass too, but I define mass as velocity).
You can't define velocity without first defining position.

Position is absolute because it is a grid that we imagine to exist. It isn't real but is a necessity for physics as we need to state that some particle is in a different place than another.

Velocity is a changing position. It is a rate of change of position which its equation clearly shows: v = d/t. You can think of velocity as being motion at set intervals. The t sets the interval and the d sets the distance of motion. We need velocity to state that some particle is in a different position than it was previously. Position does not require time but velocity does.

Force is a changing velocity, which makes it very close to the idea of acceleration. Let's face it, the only difference is the mass variable and since I have defined mass as velocity, there isn't really much difference anymore. Force is kind of acceleration, which is limited to the linear velocity, and the spin velocities combined into one concept. We need force to state that one particle can affect another particle.

Pressure is a continuous force. Not a changing force, although the forces can change but we need to keep them separate at the conceptual level. Pressure is something that is felt, not something that is given. Only force can be given and the sum of many forces over time gives us pressure.

Nevyn, I thought B-photon meant bombarding photon.

Now I remember viewing those x-, y- and z-spins before. My internet is a little slow, so the motions are rather jerky. I guess the 4 different panels are different viewpoints, but I'm not sure. Or did you say each is a set of higher order spins than the previous one? It's nice to know you set the spins all to c. Do the spins work out okay if they're set at random velocities below or even above c?

N: You can't define pressure without first defining force.
You can't define force without first defining velocity (and some would say mass too, but I define mass as velocity).
You can't define velocity without first defining position.
L: And you can't define position without consciousness. Long ago, I had to rethink everything, so I asked myself what do I know for sure. So I started by looking up the definition of "know" and found that indeed consciousness is what I know for sure. Then I determined what kinds of consciousness there are, including the subconscious. From that perspective distance is an aspect of perception. We can see, feel and hear distance. Can a blind person be a physicist? They can (mentally) picture distance as sound and feeling. They can use braille metrics. I suppose they get pretty good at estimating distance by sound too, but I bet they can't come within 1 meter for anything over 5 meters away. Right?

LloydK wrote:I thought B-photon meant bombarding photon.

Yes, that is correct, all they do is collide which means they can only provide force.

LloydK wrote:Now I remember viewing those x-, y- and z-spins before. My internet is a little slow, so the motions are rather jerky. I guess the 4 different panels are different viewpoints, but I'm not sure. Or did you say each is a set of higher order spins than the previous one? It's nice to know you set the spins all to c. Do the spins work out okay if they're set at random velocities below or even above c?

My current suite of apps run on the client side. There is no internet required once the page has loaded. So if it is jerky, then it is your computer that isn't up to the task. You might need a graphics card update (which will probably lead to a CPU upgrade which leads to a motherboard upgrade which leads to an empty wallet).

The link I supplied above leads to the documentation for SpinSim, which explains the 4 viewpoints.

All spins have a tangential velocity of c. Before I worked out the math for that, I tried all sorts of speeds and relationships, and got some pretty weird shapes, but I didn't have any confidence in any of them. I could create torus shapes (as in the complete boundary of the torus, not just the general idea of one) and vortices (Miles was especially interested in that one) and I even created something that resembled a bicycle seat, of all things. But, in the end, I realised that they were all wrong and what you see now uses Miles angular velocity equation to apply all of the rotations. I now have confidence in what SpinSim generates.

LloydK wrote:N: You can't define pressure without first defining force.
You can't define force without first defining velocity (and some would say mass too, but I define mass as velocity).
You can't define velocity without first defining position.
L: And you can't define position without consciousness. Long ago, I had to rethink everything, so I asked myself what do I know for sure. So I started by looking up the definition of "know" and found that indeed consciousness is what I know for sure. Then I determined what kinds of consciousness there are, including the subconscious. From that perspective distance is an aspect of perception. We can see, feel and hear distance. Can a blind person be a physicist? They can (mentally) picture distance as sound and feeling.

Ahhhh, now I see where you are coming from.

You have taken a philosophical argument, which does have merit, but applied it in the wrong place.

Philosophically, we only know ourselves. I can't tell if you exist or are just a figment of my own imagination. I don't even really know if I exist, but I assume I do because I can think. I think, therefore I am. That is an existential argument. An argument about existing, to put it bluntly. But it has no validity in science, because science makes one huge assumption, right at the start. That is, that the universe does exist. Science is the study of how it works and you don't waste time studying things that don't exist (black holes and 11 dimensional universes aside ). Science also assumes that the universe does not require consciousness to exist, for that would be untenable. How can the universe exist long enough for consciousness to arise if it requires consciousness itself? The only response is God. If we let science use God to explain even just one thing, then there is no reason not to use it to explain anything. To put it bluntly, God is not a scientific argument!

You are confusing knowing with existing. We can't know about the universe without consciousness, but that is only because knowledge requires conscious beings. But we can certainly exist without knowing how the universe works (most of human history was in this state, some would say it still is). Does a plant know that it exists? No, because it is not conscious. Does a plant know that the Sun is shining from a certain direction and can move itself to get more of it? Yes, it can. The plant doesn't care about existence, or knowing, or anything other than eating up those juicy charge photons.

So, consciousness is required to know something, but it is not required for that something to exist. You have to separate the two concepts because they are about totally different things.

N: So, consciousness is required to know something, but it is not required for that something to exist.
L: That's your assumption. I doubt if there's any way to prove that anything exists outside of consciousness. So I prefer to study how the universe may exist within (universal) consciousness. We may not know if each other exists in the manner in which we appear to exist to each other, but we know "others" exist, because we don't control by volition much of what we perceive or sense (esp. of "others"). We don't even control volition itself much, assuming that everyone else is basically similar to me.

Have you ever seen an organism that is conscious, but not complex? Complexity takes time to build. The universe is not born with complexity, things slowly move towards it. But you are requiring that the universe instantly has consciousness or worse, that consciousness existed before the universe.

Here's an even better argument: If existence requires consciousness, then how does consciousness exist?

With respect to knowing others exist, no we do not know anything of the sort. You think because you see results in the world that you yourself didn't consciously make, therefore someone else must have made them, therefore someone else must exist, but this is false (a fair assumption, but not a fact). You mentioned the sub-conscious earlier, so I assume you believe in that, well that is something that is inside of you and you have no control over, so how can you assume that anything outside of your own mind exists? You can't even control all of your own mind, so what's to say that everything else that you think you perceive is not a figment of that imagination? Everything you have ever known, everything that you ever thought existed could just be conjured up by your own sub-conscious.

Even if we acknowledge that it is an assumption, how can you make any other assumption? What makes my statement an assumption but your statement a reality? You are just making a different assumption, but you are making one that doesn't help what we are trying to study. This is all philosophy, not science. Science has to make some assumptions or it can't even get started. If science assumed that consciousness is required before anything, then they are admitting defeat before they even get going because that position is already taken by religion.

This isn't a religious forum. We are not here to discuss religion or philosophy (apart from how it impacts physics, which is very important). So you can think that if you want to, but it is not an argument on this site or anywhere else that is discussing science. At least, not at the level we are talking about here. There may be some area that science and philosophy intersect in a scientific way, but it is no where near the quantum realm.

I don't want to argue about philosophy. I have an interest in it and it is extremely important to understand how it applies to science, but that is not why we are all here and it is not what this thread is about. This is a forum about a mechanical universe, so we should stick to mechanical arguments.

While I don't want to dwell on this too much, I am interested to hear your definition of consciousness and also your definition of universal consciousness (whatever that is). You seem to think that they are outside of the universe. Actually, you are saying that consciousness is primary and everything else is secondary, so I would like to know what consciousness is. What is it made of? Well, I can answer that because if it is outside of the universe, then there is nothing for it to be made of. You have backed yourself into a corner of nothing. You have left all physics behind and are only left with the term 'consciousness', like that explains itself. Actually, you better define universe too, because my understanding of universe is that it contains everything. It is the collection of all that exists, but you have put consciousness outside of that, so I don't see how the two equate.

Here is the first definition of consciousness from the net: the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

How can consciousness be primary when it requires being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings? In your model, there are no surroundings to be aware of or responsive to. In fact, you don't even have the one that is being aware and responsive. Do you see how consciousness requires something to be conscious? It is a manifestation inside of the universe, not outside of it and certainly not primary to it. That is why I say that consciousness is so far above the quantum world that it is not applicable to our discussion.

I also think that is enough to make my statement about knowing and existing more than an assumption. Existence is required for consciousness, therefore consciousness can not be primary. It is a tautology. Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time. Existence is clearly primary to everything else. It is primary to knowledge and it is definitely primary to any being that has that knowledge. You have to exist to know! You have to exist to be conscious! Your surroundings have to exist to be conscious! Clearly the universe is primary to consciousness!

Never mind.