Page 1 of 1

The RS2 article section?

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:51 pm
by SoverT
What happened to the set of articles on RS2 that used to be on the old site? I don't see them listed in the archives, or anywhere.

Re: The RS2 article section?

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:37 am
by bperet
I have not ported those articles over, as most of them are a bit out-of-date, written in the early days of RS2. Better information is now available.

Was there something in specific you were looking for?

Re: The RS2 article section?

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:35 pm
by SoverT
bperet wrote:I have not ported those articles over, as most of them are a bit out-of-date, written in the early days of RS2. Better information is now available.

Was there something in specific you were looking for?
Nothing that important. I was going to review a couple of the lepton articles. Following some thought trails relating to the transmutation thead on antiquatis, I was wondering if it's possible to create a muon neutrino, so I was reviewing what the muon is

Transmuting elements via muon neutrinos

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:09 pm
by bperet
SoverT wrote:Following some thought trails relating to the transmutation thead on antiquatis, I was wondering if it's possible to create a muon neutrino, so I was reviewing what the muon is
In Larson's terms, the muon neutrino is a double-rotational base, the one used to form the two, double-rotating systems of atoms. Let me clarify some notation issues:

In Structure of the Physical Universe (SPU), Larson included his "rotational base" in the displacement notation:

1-0-0 single rotational base (particles)
1-1-0 double rotational base (atoms)

In later works, he changed the notation to exclude the single rotational base displacement, basically knocking everything down by 1 unit, making the single rotational base 0-0-0 since the rotational base had no physical effects--like it wasn't even there (in RS2, it isn't). This created a problem for the double rotational base, where the second unit did have an effect... but it sort of bounced between the A and B magnetic dimensions. So rather than using 1-0-0 or 0-1-0 for the displacements, he switched to "half effective" in both dimensions, as a matter of probability, resulting in the notation: ½-½-0.

If you note, that is the same notation as the muon neutrino. When an atom ejects part of its magnetic rotating system, it ejects 1-1-0 (a double-rotation). As part of the atom it was adding 1-1-0 to the rotation, but when it flys off on its own, one of those displacements becomes a rotational base for the new particle, dropping it to the ½-½-0 notation and us observing a muon neutrino, rather than a chunk of atom.

Regarding transmutation, remember that the conventional environment is loaded with uncharged electrons, so any "free" muon neutrino, such as those generated by radioactive decay, almost immediately grab one and convert into an electron neutrino, ½-½-(1). To transmute elements, you would have to stay within the time region to get the muon neutrino to add to the magnetic portion of the atomic rotation, jumping it between elements (such as copper transmuting to silver, or silver to gold--and if you notice, all three of these elements are usually found together in veins).

Another option would be to deal with the electron neutrino, as the charged version is what accounts for isotopic mass (gravitational charge) in an atom. By removing the charged electron from a captured electron neutrino in the time region, it would convert to a muon neutrino that would add to the magnetic rotation, transmuting the element.

Simple transmutation (increases in atomic number by 1) are normally accomplished with positron capture. The problem there is that positrons are very rare in the environment, since they are easily captured, and we don't have any effective ways to produce positron streams (unlike electrons).