Neutrons and Neutral Charge

As Mathis' model supposes, a particle's apparent charge is due to the cross-section of a stacked-spin b-photon (it's effective size) relative to gravitational attraction. Consider also that mass is proportional to the stacked spin count. How could a neutron possibly exhibit a neutral charge when it's mass (and therefore it's cross section) is greater than a proton? Shouldn't it be positive, if not more positive than a proton?

Not exactly. A particles real charge is its emission of real photons, and is relative to the ambient charge field. The cause of that emission is the stacked spins of the particle and how it pushes charge photons around in collisions. Since the top spin has the largest radius, it tends to push photons outward from that spin circumference, creating equatorial emission. Since most charge is being pushed to the equator, and less at the poles, it sets up a potential difference.

The neutron, on the other hand, while having the same number of spins as a proton, does not have the same spin directions. This just means that some spins rotate in a positive direction and some rotate in a negative direction (which only means they spin in opposite directions). Miles has proposed that the spins of a neutron create a situation where the charge photons it collides with are pushed back into the inside of the neutron, rather than to the outside like a charged particle. Since there is more charge within the boundary of the particle, it has more mass, because mass is (partially) the sum of the mass of the charge photons.

In my studies, I have found that there are a few different forms that a stacked spin particle can take. One of them has a large central hole, for want of a better term, and another has a smaller central hole. I think that the larger hole creates a neutron while the smaller hole creates a proton. Essentially, the larger hole allows more charge to flow straight through from one pole to the other, and therefore does not get emitted at the equator as much. This creates a less-charged particle because it has less equatorial emission. Maybe not exactly neutral, or charge-less, but certainly reduced from that of a proton. Since the emission is relative to the ambient field, if the neutron emits enough to some-what equal that field, then it will be considered neutral.

.
jacksonc wrote. As Mathis' model supposes,
airman. I must disagree. I was ready to point out a dozen problems in your post but Nevyn has already explained things quite nicely.

Nevyn wrote. In my studies, I have found that there are a few different forms that a stacked spin particle can take. One of them has a large central hole, for want of a better term, and another has a smaller central hole. I think that the larger hole creates a neutron while the smaller hole creates a proton. Essentially, the larger hole allows more charge to flow straight through from one pole to the other, and therefore does not get emitted at the equator as much.

airman. I'm familiar with the with the two stacked spin forms, with either large or small openings; but I don't recall having heard you say that was the difference between neutrons and protons. It makes good sense - more photons can pass directly through the 'neutron' form instead of cycling through the stacked spins. Excuse me for asking, Have you considered sharing that particular idea with Miles?
.

I'm surprised to hear that. I'm sure I've said it on this forum multiple times. Easy to miss I guess. We do cover a lot of ground when we get going. Sometimes I miss, or miss-interpret, things others say because I am focused on something else.

I believe that I did consult Miles on that one, many years ago now. Of course, it depends on whether my stacked spin simulator does actually resemble the motion of a stacked spin particle, but I haven't heard of a better model yet, so I'll run with it for now.

If I remember correctly, Miles got a bit hung-up on one of the perspectives in SpinSim. I only had the 1 version back then, so it contained all 4 views of the same particle. Miles didn't think that the top-left view (which has the camera rotated 45° about the X, Y and Z axes) was valid. I thought it is just a perspective, if one exists, then all of them exist and many more, but I think Miles was looking at it from a measurement perspective. We wouldn't measure it from that position, and he is probably right in that regard. I didn't care so much about measurement, only what the motions were.

Nevyn wrote:The neutron, on the other hand, while having the same number of spins as a proton, does not have the same spin directions.

Do you suspect any particular number of spins and set of directions of each spin for the proton or neutron? Your models presume 4 spins (1 axial + 3 spacial) and playing with the directions indeed produces two distinct shapes. Do you believe there is an intrinsic mass of the b-photon? I was hoping the mechanism for mass (being a resistance to acceleration) could be explained with the stacked spin model.

I don't have an exact number of spin levels, but I think it is around 14-16 levels above the axial spinning BPhoton. That is just from some rough calculations I made on some thread here.

For my ideas on mass, you can look through this thread, https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t65-stacked-spin-breakthrough, from about 4 years ago. Essentially, I believe that mass is just velocity. The velocity of the surface of a particle, as in expansion, and the sum of spin velocities on a particle. There are other apparent mass values too that I go into in that thread linked above. It needs a lot more work, but it is a start.