Gopi wrote:
In quarks view: uud
In the RS2 view: 1-1-(1)
Here, 'u' is the 'up' quark, and 'd' is the 'down' quark.
I've looked at this before, considering that "u" might be a magnetic (solid or double) rotation, and "d" being the electric (single) rotation in the RS. It didn't pan out with the other particles, though.
Gopi wrote:
Now if the comparison is valid, then we take a look at the 'nuclear' neutron:
In quarks view: udd
In the RS2 view: 1/2-1/2-(1)
Very interesting... Larson considered the "nuclear" neutron to be the muon neutrino, 1/2-1/2-0 (which he called the "massless neutron" versus the "compound neutron" that is observed). Your identification makes more sense, as we know that in conventional theory, the "neutron" is responsible for isotopic mass, and here you've used the electron neutrino, what RS2 uses for isotopic mass.
Larson's RS was slightly different in its treatment, using the idea of the "gravitational charge", where an electron neutrino passed through the atom and transferred its rotational vibration to the atom and moved on. I abandoned that idea because it made no sense that you could have an accelerated motion, like rotational vibration, without a motion to sustain it... hence, the capture of the neutrino was more logical.
Also want to point out that the neutrino has ZERO net displacement, and will just move through an atom. In order for it to be captured, it just be CHARGED (in time, since the protons are temporal rotations, and the relation of time-to-time is not motion, so it gets stuck). In RS2, that would mean the muon neutrino, 1/2-1/2-0 captured a charged electron, making 1/2-1/2-(1)* (the charged electron, of course, being the capture of a photon by an uncharged electron). Just a way to view the compounding of motions. So technically, the "neutron" as an electron neutrino, does look like a composite of a proton + electron.
Gopi wrote:
Now, what if the the parallel continued, and the nuclear neutron is actually 1-(1)-(1), or equivalently, (1)-(1)-1, or a cosmic proton? So what if the cosmic proton and the proton exist in nuclear motion, with the one turning into the other, inter-converting, so to speak?
The problem there is that the cosmic proton has a net motion in space, whereas the material proton has a net motion in time... the relation of space to time constitutes motion, so they will pass through each other. It might be possible if ONE of the two were charged. (If they are both charged, one charge would be in space, the other in time, so the charges would pass through each other.)
In the paper I wrote on Subatomic Mass a decade ago, I discovered that the observed proton mass is a nearly perfect 50/50 mix of charged and uncharged protons. As you mention later on, the c-proton and m-proton are not distinguishable from one another, so it is highly likely that what is being measured as the uncharged half is the cosmic proton, which implies that our local environment is 50% m-proton and 50% c-proton.
Gopi wrote:
The "charge" which the nucleus is supposed to have exists in the "atomic region" of the the RS2 atom, so the cosmic proton would not be taking up any charged characteristics. And the cosmic proton, when it converts into a material proton,
Conversion is probably not likely; the proton contains a full, double-rotating system, so there are no free dimensions for it to "flip" in. Having a net motion of 1, the proton rotation has no effect outside the unit boundary so it is stable in both material and cosmic environments. (Outside effects are determined by ln(dt) > 1, where dt is the temporal displacement. See BPOM inter-atomic distances).
Gopi wrote:
... can release the cosmic aspect of one of the dimensions as the cosmic positron: electron. This electron then picks up a charge from the atomic region motion, giving the net effect of increasing the 'nuclear' charge. This is probably the mechanism of beta decay. It stands to reason that the proton may also become a cosmic proton by releasing a positron, but the positron being material, would not get charged as the electron did, and is consequently unobservable.
The c-Proton would throw off an m-Positron, being (1)-(1)-1, resulting in a c-deuteron. If the m-Proton throws off its charge (either by electron or photon emission), then it provides a "time" for a c-Proton to move through, which might be the case you are describing. Interesting consequence of that is that in an aggregate, all the atoms will decay at about the same rate, since the c-Protons would shift through the time of the uncharged protons, from atom to atom, averaging out the decay across the aggregate (kind of like ionization effects).
Gopi wrote:
I did some digging thru the recently updated Reciprocity journal, and this is what I found:
Larson, in RECIPROCITY Vol 17 No. 2, page 7 wrote:
If the proton and the cosmic proton lose their charges, which they may do on, or near, contact, they are essentially equivalent, and probably freely interconvertible.
I don't think "interconvertible" is the correct word here; more like "interchangable", since they both look and interact the same.
I was unaware of that quote... but curiously enough discovered it on my own. I brought it up during my RS2 lecture a month ago concerning the effect it would have on Hydrogen, since it makes m-Hydrogen and c-Hydrogen indistinguishable from each other in chemical combinations. The point I was trying to make was that the c-Hydrogen can be present in water and organic compounds. In
Beyond Space and Time, Larson points out that LIFE is an aggregate of c-motion + m-motion... if you have m-Hydrogen, then you have an inorganic compound. If you have c-Hydrogen, then you have an ORGANIC one--living.
Water, being composed of two ions, H+ and OH-, gives a number of possibilities. Either ion can contain c-Hydrogen, with different results. mH+ is a magnetic valence, cH+ is an electric valence, mOmH- is an electric/magnetic connection, whereas mOcH- is an electric/electric connection. This will result in different structures and behavior:
mH mOmH = plain, distilled water (magnetic H + electric OH)
cH mOmH = ionic water (electric H + electric OH)
mH mOcH = magnetic water (magnetic/electric)
cH mOcH =
living water; aka Viktor Schauberger (electric/electric)
Oxygen would have to remain a material structure for the compound to be material.
Gopi wrote:
What I think is happening in the case of quarks is that the geometry being different, the effects of single and solid rotations are seen more clearly. Since the legacy scientists are trying to account for motion which occurs in three dimensions, but do not yet realize that charge is not effective in the 'nuclear' region, it has given rise to charges of -1/3 and +2/3 to the quarks, which is merely a redistribution for a 1d rotation and a 2d solid rotation.
These are just tentative thoughts, please post your comments.
I agree; given Nehru's "Some Thoughts on Spin" where solid rotations were identified, it makes a lot of sense that +2/3 would be a temporal, solid rotation and -1/3 would be a spatial, electric rotation. But then that begs the question as to what top/bottom and strange/charm are allusions to.
Quarks also "bond" in either pairs of opposites, or triplets. The pairs are, given what we know about polar systems, most likely a bi-rotation, probably a magnetic/solid bi-rotation. The triplets make me think of the quaternion, with 3 rotating systems (pairs being a 2-d birotation, triplets being a 3-d "tri"-rotation).
Every dogma has its day...
