Miles Mathis Nuclear/Bonding theory

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Miles Mathis Nuclear/Bonding theory

Post by bperet » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:57 pm

At the suggestion of a member, I am going through Miles Mathis' papers on bonding and atomic structure. It is actually very similar to the RS model that Larson proposed, back in 1959. From the paper, "Electron Bonding is a Myth":
Atomic bonds are not created by sharing or borrowing electrons, they are created by channeling the charge field through the nucleus.
Words are different, but the concept is the same. In the RS, there are no valence electrons, and the temporal, atomic rotation--the nucleus--is creating the inward, scalar motion that results in the concept of gravity.
We are told that all elements desire to become noble gases, and that this explains why atoms want to gain or lose electrons.
Ions, in the RS, occur when the electric rotation is not unity (Noble gases have a zero electric displacement, therefore unity). Charge does exist in the RS, but not in the context of bonding.
The hole in the disk indicates one field potential and the equator indicates the opposite potential, since photons go in one and out the other.
If you've looked at my RS2 atomic graphics, I show the atom as a sphere (location in space, 1-x), a equatorial torus (2-x) with inverse, polar jets (3-x). I have a "fat disk" with a hole in the middle. Mathis' "holes" appear to be inward, scalar motion in the RS ultra-high speed range.
I have shown that dark matter is actually my charge field.
In RS2, dark energy is the linear expansion/progression of the natural reference system. Dark matter, like the structure of the atom, is the angular progression in time, and being rotational, gives the appearance of gravitation without anything to gravitate. In the old days, it was called aether drag. Just as space progresses scalarly outward, from our perspective, time progresses angularly inward. That's the Tao of Motion.
But my diagrams have already set the table for a revolution in quantum mechanics. We will see where it takes us.
That is what Dewey Larson thought, too, back in 1959.

What I have gathered from this, so far, is that the database "bonding" arrangement needs to account for the different speed ranges. Larson's RS only has three; RS2 has a variable number, depending on the scalar structure. Complex quantities, such as electrons and positrons, only possess 1-x and 2-x speeds, since there are only 2 units of motion possible. The electron can be either speed, s/t, or energy, t/s. It cannot do anything else.

Atomic structure, being 3-dimensional, have the three speed ranges (four, if you include unit speed). In the two, double-rotating systems of atoms, there is technically 6 speed ranges, to account for the cosmic side. And the projection forward into life units shows seven speed ranges. (This is why I used variable-length vectors in the new DB model.)

So it is a start. Going to read some more of his nuclear papers.
Every dogma has its day...

SoverT
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

 

Post by SoverT » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:17 am

Just as space progresses scalarly outward, from our perspective, time progresses angularly inward. That's the Tao of Motion.
Just to clarify, what you're calling inward here is what you were calling outward in my thread on atoms exploding outward in time? And this/these both are the movement toward the point at infinity, as you outlined in the video lectures?

I'm still trying to get a better grip on the differences between duration, clock time, and how those relate to change in location in 3D time.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Conceptualizing inward and outward motion

Post by bperet » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:17 am

Just to clarify, what you're calling inward here is what you were calling outward in my thread on atoms exploding outward in time? And this/these both are the movement toward the point at infinity, as you outlined in the video lectures?
The natural datum is unity (1), so inward means towards unity--the ratio of motion is getting smaller, heading towards 1/1. So 5, 4, 3, 2... is inward, as is 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2... because the next step in the progression brings you back to the datum, the "end of the tape measure." Outward is the reverse, the ratio of motion is moving away from unity as 2, 3, 4, 5,... (towards infinity) or 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5,... (towards zero). This is why Nehru liked "zero-one-infinity" because it splits down the middle. You start at one, and can go "outward" in either direction.

0 ← 1 → ∞ (outward)

0 → 1 ← ∞ (inward)

As a scalar, unity has no geometry, so there is no linear or angular unity, it's just a reference speed. Since we are dealing with scalar magnitudes between objects, when something explodes in space (outward), the distances between the fragments and center are getting larger--moving away from unity. When something explodes in time, it does the same thing, except the duration (clock space) is getting larger, instead.

Due to the reciprocal relation between space and time, we see outward in time as inward in space, so when something explodes in time, the durations are getting larger, but the distances are getting smaller, since distance/duration = 1. So objects exploding in time are imploding in space.
I'm still trying to get a better grip on the differences between duration, clock time, and how those relate to change in location in 3D time.
Just thing of it in spatial terms, 3D space and clock time, then yank it inside-out for how we observe time. If you look at an explosion in space, you see the pieces closest together near the center, with an expanding cloud of debris around it. Same thing happens with an explosion in time, but we observe the reciprocal: the pieces closest together are at the surface of the explosion bubble, with an imploding cloud heading for the center. Think of a soap bubble that is popping IN, instead of out.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

What I have gathered from

Post by Horace » Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:06 pm

What I have gathered from this, so far, is that the database "bonding" arrangement needs to account for the different speed ranges.
So the reconsideration of his models was not a total waste of time.

P.S.

Could you edit your first post in this thread to include the links to the fat disk with the hole?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Link to atom

Post by bperet » Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:50 pm

Horace wrote:Could you edit your first post in this thread to include the links to the fat disk with the hole?
Done. It is here: Atomic Comagnetism
Every dogma has its day...

Gopi
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

Re: Miles Mathis Nuclear/Bonding theory

Post by Gopi » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:02 pm

We start off what Miles thinks exists in protons and neutrons (baryons). That is, the way he stacks spins one on top of the other, and steadily increases the size of the corresponding particle. He takes the axis as "a" and the other three spins as "x", "y" and "z":
Miles Mathis, in Quark wrote: I have shown that a single spherical particle can have as many as four independent spins: 1) it can spin on its axis, 2) it can spin in the x-plane, as long as this second spin is outside the gyroscopic influence of the axial spin. That is, if the spinning sphere has a radius of 1, the x-spin must be end over end, with a length of 2. 3) It can spin in the y-plane, with a amplitude of 4, 4) it can spin in the z-plane, with an amplitude of 8....
Here is a list of possible spin states of a baryon.
+a+x+y+z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x+y+z
-a-x+y+z
+a+x-y+z
Then he goes on to create particles from this. The neutron is where the spins "close" upon themselves, like this:
baryon.jpg
baryon.jpg (5.11 KiB) Viewed 2440 times
So the neutrons are:
-a-x-y+z -
+a+x+y-z -
-a+x+y-z -
+a-x-y+z -
Protons:
+a+x+y+z
-a-x-y-z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x-y-z

Then he aligns these baryons with each other, in a double-fan structure. See the Helium Paper.
Miles Mathis wrote:The four spins of the neutron bring the photons back to the center, while the four spins of the proton allow the photons to escape... What this means for our analysis here is that the proton must be treated as an extended particle, while the neutron is treated as a discrete particle. In other words, in this first part of the analysis, the neutron is treated mainly as a z-spin, while the proton is treated as a z-spin plus the shell of emitted photons.
To visualize this easily, think of a lawn sprinkler, one that spins like a pinwheel. The neutron is like the lawn sprinkler spinning, but without the water. The proton is like the lawn sprinkler plus the water being emitted. In this way, the proton acts like a much larger particle, and that is how we will diagram it.
The main crux of Miles' work on the nuclear model is his version of the "double rotating system", which he calls the alpha particle, and gives it this structure:
alpha.png
alpha.png (73.49 KiB) Viewed 2440 times
So the two discs are his double-rotations, supported by the neutrons between them. He sees the discs like "fans" that blow charge through the holes. That is motion, of course. And why are there only two neutrons balancing the two discs?
Miles Mathis wrote:You will say, “Don't we need at least four posts to keep the protons from turning toward eachother? Can't the proton disks still fall together at points A and B?” No, we don't, and they can't. You would be correct, if the disks were not spinning. But because they are spinning, stability can be created by only two posts.
Then, finally in this nuclear paper he starts putting his model together. The alignment of the discs he uses are mostly along the central axis, or around the edge of the discs. That is how there are a number of nuclear diagrams that he generates one by one. I would recommend reading that paper completely.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Miles Mathis Nuclear/Bonding theory

Post by bperet » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:57 am

Gopi wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:02 pm
So the neutrons are:
-a-x-y+z -
+a+x+y-z -
-a+x+y-z -
+a-x-y+z -
Protons:
+a+x+y+z
-a-x-y-z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x-y-z
So they are just RS2 quaternion rotations:
<w ix jy kz>, where:
w = +1 for material, -1 for cosmic
w × x × y × z is negative for neutron (making the neutron a 3D photon) and positive for proton.

It also seems his 1, 2, 4, 8 binary sequence has to do with the way quaternion rotational magnitude multiplies...
<1 0 0 0> = 1
<1 2 0 0> = 2 (1 × 2i)
<1 2 2 0> = 4 (1 × 2i × 2j)
<1 2 2 2> = 8 (1 × 2i × 2j × 2k)
(You cannot get to an outer rotation (k), without rotating through the inner ones (i, j)).

Mathis' "alpha particle" appears to be the "dual quaternion" of RS2. (The TWO, double-rotating systems of the RS.)

I guess that would be the big difference between Mathis and the RS--he is based on a "universe of matter" so his rotating rings have substance that he has to separate by different radii to keep from colliding, whereas the RS is a "universe of motion" where you have "motion without anything moving" to get in the way.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Miles Mathis Nuclear/Bonding theory

Post by bperet » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:03 pm

Question on the above... How does Mathis handle antimatter (cosmic matter)? Would it be the sign of the "core" rotation (a)?

Trying to understand this "charge field" of his, which seems to have photons flying around everywhere without any mechanism. It appears to be analogous to the progression of "locations" (the scalar expansion of the Universe).

With the introduction of yin/angular velocity into the RS with RS2, a similar condition exists, since linear and angular speeds are paired up as the "two units of motion." The linear/yang aspect is the location progressing linearly outward (the scalar expansion), whereas the angular/yin aspect is the location progressing in an angular fashion, but going nowhere because it loops back upon itself. In essence, every location in the material and cosmic sectors that is "unoccupied" is a unit-speed photon. BUT, since "unit speed" is the datum, that photon has a displacement of zero--it has no tangible effect, only existing "in potential."

Charge, in the RS, is a rotational vibration--which requires at least a unit displacement, in order to fold back upon itself. I am guessing that he is using "charge" in a more conventional sense, in order to have a mechanism to "push things apart," rather than just using Larson's technique of the unit speed datum?
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
daniel
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:53 am
Location: P3X-774
Contact:

Re: Miles Mathis Nuclear/Bonding theory

Post by daniel » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:40 pm

Is it me, or does Miles Mathis actually write like Duck Dodgers in the 24½ Century? :D
MilesMathis.jpg
MilesMathis.jpg (97.97 KiB) Viewed 2411 times
Granted the guy has some good ideas, but actually getting to them is often quite a challenge!
I will be told that the mainstream is well aware of charge: that is what all the +'s and -'s are about, you know. But the charge in mainstream physics has become virtual. It has no field presence. They wouldn't admit to my “photons flying around everywhere,” as I'm sure you're aware. For them, charge is mediated by a virtual photon, which has no field presence. It isn't real. After the specific charge “message” is given between particles, the photon disappears. And even while it is giving its message, it has no mass, radius, or energy. It is a ghost, and so it doesn't help us in any mechanical solution.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

"Charge channel" is actually comagnetism

Post by bperet » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:40 pm

I was going through the "How the Elements are Built" paper, and noticed his "charge channel" (page 7) appears to be a comagnetic sheath, as Nehru described in his paper on sunspots:
Mathis-Proton.gif
Mathis "charge channel"
Mathis-Proton.gif (11.97 KiB) Viewed 2408 times
bperet wrote:
Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:42 pm
Searl Effect Generator (SEG) Magnetic structure
I used Nehru's research in my analysis of the SEG magnetic structure:
Image
So Mathis' model is not correct in the RS; it isn't a flow of "charge" from the poles to the equator, but two, distinct speed ranges: the equatorial sheaths are intermediate speed (2-x) exhibiting comagnetism (like poles attract, making flattened cones displaced from the equator) and the poles are linear thredules in the ultra-high speed (3-x), inverting the direction of magnetism and pulling inward. The "sphere" is the low speed (1-x) range.

It is curious he used the same color scheme I did (his paper, 2014, my post, 2011), with the blue at the south pole and upper plane, and the red at the north and lower plane (I used green for the neutrals). I even have the "hole" in the middle of the disk, as his diagram shows in Gopi's reply. Though it appears Mathis missed the fact that the "charge field" will be quantized (unless his version of "discrete units" are individual photons).
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply