## Nuclides "out of range" (Problem)

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
bperet
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Nuclides "out of range" (Problem)

While creating a nuclide reference database for RS2 research, I noticed some inconsistencies in the data--namely, that there are nuclides listed that have an "impossible" structure to them. Out of 5511 nuclides, 295 fall into this category.

The problem: In Larson's RS, the mass of any nuclide is determined by the equation: 2Z+G, where Z is the atomic number and G is the number of "gravitational charges" (in RS2, the charge from captured neutrinos).

2Z occurs because conventional science measures atomic mass by "charge" (vibration, G), and a vibration is half a rotation. Each rotation therefore appears to be two charges. The gravitational charge, being a vibration, is the basic "atomic mass unit."

What this means: the atomic number of an element in the RS is determined by its magnetic rotation, having a mass of 2Z. That means the minimum mass of any element is twice the atomic number. From there, you go up by single units of gravitational charge (vibrational mass) until you reach a point where the vibrational mass is so great that it overwhelms the rotational system--and destroys it (probably α-decay). Numerically, the maximum mass for a nuclide would be 4Z-1 (you need another 2Z worth of gravitational charge to cancel out the rotation).

Of the data obtained:
• 280 nuclides have a mass less than 2Z.
• 13 have a mass greater than 4Z-1
Gopi happened to stop by when I discovered this problem and suggested that they may be short-lived atomic fragments, since they all come from particle accelerators. If that is the case, he suggested the lifetimes would be very short, in the order of a few natural units of time. However, the data shows that the average half-life of these 280 nuclides is 7.6 HOURS. Quite a bit more than 152 attoseconds. The 13 that went too high had a much shorter half-life, being 1.02 seconds--which is still large, compared to an attosecond.

When studying "natural isotopes," I ran into this problem with only Helium-3, the helion. What I found was a "misidentification," discussed here: Isotopes, compound rotations (n, 1H, 3He). (Basically, the helion is a compound particle, like hydrogen, and has nothing to do with helium--probably why it behaves so differently.)

Also, they are now including data for Element 118 (mass values 293, 294, 295), which Larson says cannot exist, because it is beyond the range that a motion can be expressed in a 3D reference system. Half-lives there are in the order of 1/1000th of a second.

I suspect the problem has to do with they way physicists report data. For example, if you take a glass bottle and smash it against the wall, is each piece of glass STILL a "lower mass" version of the bottle? After all, it is still "glass." That is basically what they are doing in particle accelerators.

I am not sure what these impact events are doing to the rotational/vibration structures, and I currently do not have a way to model them. It may have been converted to a compound motion, but don't understand why the long half-lives would exist.

If you are using the research database, you can get a list of the 280 "under range" nuclides by:

Code: Select all

SELECT * FROM physics.nubase WHERE a<2*z ORDER BY z,a
And the "over-range" by:

Code: Select all

SELECT * FROM physics.nubase WHERE a>4*z-1 ORDER BY z,a
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

### Re: Nuclides "out of range" (Problem)

It just occurred to me: what if the reason the lifetimes of isotopes far from stability are so much more stable in measurements is because they aren't actually measuring strictly cosmic or striclty material particles, but a combination of the two? I was thinking about how the observable neutron is a combination of material and cosmic rotation.

I'm still new to the RS so I'm going to use conventional physics terms. In general the desired isotope is selected in a beam via accelerator mass spectrometry. This is when a beam of particles with a known energy is generated with an ion source, meaning you have lots of particles that will have an extra electron attached, allowing them to be accelerated in an electric field. With a known electric field, one can impart a set amount of energy to the ions. These are then sent through a stripping foil which is some material that will interact with the electrons of the ion, removing them as they pass through. Then the ions are sent through a positive voltage to impart some additional energy (this way one can infer how many electrons got stripped which is a statistical process, as the energy imparted will be proportional to the charge number), and then the fragments are separated usually using a magnetic field. In a magnetic field, the charged particle will be deflected in a circular path, with a radius $r = \frac{mv}{\abs{q}B}$ where m is the mass of the particle, v is the velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field, B is the magnetic field strength, and q is the electric charge number. The isotope with the desired mass to charge ratio will be selected and sent to detectors or for further interactions with a target (then products of this interaction will be detected).

The point of this description is to ask the question, can some kind of cosmic + material combination of rotations mimic the signature of the particle that you are calculating that has attosecond scale lifetimes? I suspect we would have to do a case study and look at a few specific experiments to see their methods for production and measurement of the isotope to really understand what is going on.

bperet
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Nuclides "out of range" (Problem)

blaine wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:27 pm
The point of this description is to ask the question, can some kind of cosmic + material combination of rotations mimic the signature of the particle that you are calculating that has attosecond scale lifetimes? I suspect we would have to do a case study and look at a few specific experiments to see their methods for production and measurement of the isotope to really understand what is going on.
That's brilliant! It never occurred to me (or even Nehru) that the conditions in an accelerator would, indeed, push things past the speed of light (which would not change the speed of the particle, but push some of the rotations into the cosmic side--antiparticles), with the result of a structure analogous to the neutron (material+cosmic = "life unit"). As such, the "lifetime" would be exactly that--a probability calculation of when the inverse rotating systems would cancel each other out.

See: The Lifetime of the Neutron (KVK Nehru) for details on these probability calculations.

Larson only uses mass/age limits for decay in his books, and does state that a particle accelerator cannot push anything past the speed of light--by electromagnetic means (the speed of EM is "c", so you the best you can do is push something to "c"). But in RS2, the electron is cosmic, not an electric rotation based on a material base. Larson's limitation only applies to EM (magnetic) fields--not dielectric fields (which are instantaneous--infinite speed--in the material sector).

It is interesting you post this; just last night I was thinking that the "under-range" isotopes were actually a product of a negative magnetic ionization level, where isotopic mass inverts (2G-Z) and indicates that FTL motion is involved in the accelerator process.

See: Astronomical X-Ray Sources (Dewey Larson), which is one of the few places where he documents the transition between sublight and FTL motion (in stars), and their effects.

I would be curious to know how much "radio noise" these accelerators put out, as when they cross the unit speed boundary, RF energy is emitted (per Larson's paper). X-rays (2-x) or Gamma rays (3-x) are produced when the speed drops back to sublight.
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

### Re: Nuclides "out of range" (Problem)

The RF noise is probably something that isn't too well documented, mainly because in mainstream physics there isn't much interest in EM radiation in that frequency range. Theres always alot of RF noise with these machines so they tend to wrap sensitive electronics in copper shielding to reduce the impact on the detector readouts. I would imagine the RF radiation from the accelerators would drown out the RF being produced by the particle, even if it is substantially larger than would be predicted by standard physics. One would have to set up an experiment specifically to measure it I think.

I still need to check out that paper on astronomical x rays, I've been wondering about why if FTL is so common in RS we haven't observed it. I am still trying to understand the basics better, but I was reading through Neglected Facts of Science yesterday and the whole idea behind scalar motion makes way more sense now.