Reciprocal System Research Society

what do you think of the current debate about the weight of a neutron? SCIAM has article saying two methods of determining it and both seem accurate but disagree. Is there such a thing as a free Neutron outside the nucleus in RS theory?

what do you think of the current debate about the weight of a neutron? SCIAM has article saying two methods of determining it and both seem accurate but disagree. Is there such a thing as a free Neutron outside the nucleus in RS theory?

I found two arguments, one on the mass variations and the other concerning lifetimes. Both have been addressed by the Reciprocal System in the past.

Larson addressed isotopic mass variation in Basic Properties of Matter, making it dependent upon the environmental factor of magnetic ionization levels. Since these levels vary across the Earth, atoms will have different masses depending on where they are. This is what they are now finding and documenting with a range of masses, instead of an average.

Nehru addressed lifetimes in his paper, The Lifetime of the Neutron, defining the lifetime as a mere matter of probability, since the "compound neutron" (Larson's term for the free neutron) is composed of a proton + antineutrino. Eventually, the aligment of this composite particle will cause them to separate, ending the combination. Again, environmental factors will modify this lifetime, such as thermal and electric ionization levels. These factors are seldom considered in conventional science.

Larson's original work identified two kinds of neutrons, the "compound neutron" mentioned as the free neutron, and the "massless neutron" which he later identified as the muon neutrino in The Universe of Motion. The additional mass (past the 2Z rotational mass) is isotopic mass, comprised of captured electron neutrinos; each neutrino adding 1 AMU to the net mass. The net mass for any atom in the low speed range is therefore 2Z+G, twice the atomic number + the number of captured neutrinos. No neutrons or protons in the RS nucleus.

I am a bit confused about subatomic particles. RS theory on the one hand seems to think the atom has a nucleus but then as you state above no neutrons. On the other hand you talk about "free" neutrons. Free from what?

I am a bit confused about subatomic particles. RS theory on the one hand seems to think the atom has a nucleus but then as you state above no neutrons.

The rotation that defines an atom is in time (a temporal displacement), so there is no spatial "nucleus" of particles. Nuclear effects occur at the unit space boundary, that separates motion in space form motion in time (the time region, or as conventional science calls it, "configuration space" even though it isn't space).

On the other hand you talk about "free" neutrons. Free from what?

The compound neutron only exists outside of the atom, with a limited lifetime. It is basically a decay product, not a building block. "Free" as in the sense of freely moving around in space.

My problem is being stuck on the fact that physics says neutrons come from the nucleus of an atom. I need to look at "neutron" as just a name for a piece of matter that just is and is formed like any other piece of matter in our universe. Thanks for helping me clear this up in my mind.

You should watch the Gopi's lecture on Physics History, where he documents all the misleading paths physicists took to get where we are today:

http://reciprocalsystem.org/video/physics-history

I have watched these. It's my college physics that is telling me how it is that is the problem. takes a lot to unlearn. still wrestling with some of these concepts and how they are "derived" and made to appear "obvious"? I don't see for instance WHY there has to be a COSMIC sector[3d time and clock space] that is a "natural" consequence of MOTION. I see it as possible but not the ONLY possibility or even a necessary one.

I don't see for instance WHY there has to be a COSMIC sector[3d time and clock space] that is a "natural" consequence of MOTION.

Because motion is based on a reciprocal relation, a multiplicative inverse.

To only have a material sector would mean that no number greater than 1 could exist, only fractions could: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...

Now if you happen to be wearing 2 socks, 2 shoes, etc., than 2 must exist, so there is an equal probability that the sequence: 2/1, 3/1, 4/1... also exists.

Low speed 1 is the cosmic.

If I give you a ratio of 1:1 as motion, can you tell me if it is 1s:1t or 1t:1s, or is there a difference, at all?

Space and time are just labels for the opposite halves of a ratio. Nothing more.