Electric Ionization (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.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Electric Ionization (Problem)

Post by bperet » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:14 pm

Several of us are working on setting up a simulation for "Electricity V2.0," that includes all the things omitted from conventional electronics--things like "hole current" (as Gopi put it) and taking the electrical system into 3D... not just DC (Direct Current) and AC (Alternating Current), but also IC (Impulse current) and OC (Oscillating Current)--the latter two being what is behind most "free energy" and antigravity research.

But, for a simulation to effectively reproduce observable and measurable results, there are a number of "environmental variables" that must go into it, such as temperature, pressure and ionization levels--and I found a new one... electric ionization (inverse magnetic ionization).

As you know, atoms are composed of two, 2D rotating systems, displaced in time, plus a "vibratory mass" that Larson referred to as a "gravitational charge," because each "charge" added 1 AMU to the atom. Atomic weight is 2Z+G, twice the atomic number (for the two, 2D rotating systems) plus the gravitational charge (charged neutrino mass). Conventional science does it different--protons+ neutrons, without realizing that each proton is "paired" with a neutron (rotating system) and the extra neutrons are actually the neutrinos of gravitational charge. The level of gravitational charge present in any atom is determined by the magnetic ionization level, a value that must be measured from observation, as there is no way to deduce it from something the size of a planet. Right now, that level is about 1.0 in natural units.

When I went to the A-B--C-D notation, opening the door to 2D electric behavior (C-D versus just C), that also opened up the cosmic half of the atomic systems to the same ionization effects--where the "electrons" could become 2D and behave exactly the same as their magnetic counterparts, but in space rather than time. Because of symmetry, that means there will also be a "antigravitational charge" that is concurrent with the electric rotating systems, the anti-neutrino. The number of these charges would be the electric ionization level, analogous to the magnetic ionization level, and would have to be measured from observation--but I have NO idea of what to look for, or how to measure it. Yet, it is a critical value to these simulations and experiments.

Was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how this would manifest?

Given the way science looks at charges, I would assume it would manifest as some kind of potential energy barrier (analogous to cosmic vibrational mass), or something like an "OORT cloud" that is a pool of charged electrons, instead of comets.

Since the magnetic ionization level is determined by the net, electric displacement in atoms (atomic number), it may well be that the electric ionization level is determined by the net, magnetic displacement in atoms (mass).

Bit stuck at the moment, so any thoughts appreciated!
Every dogma has its day...

user737
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Re: Electric Ionization (Problem)

Post by user737 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:28 am

Seems the focus should be on the anti-neutrino.

Not to dox myself too badly, but I do recall from my nuclear days that anti-neutrinos were a bi-product (tri-?) of the beta decay process.

Sure enough...

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/66

Anti-neutrinos are produced in nuclear reactors when the radioactive products of nuclear fission undergo beta decay (β−), a process in which a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino.

In other words, a nuclear fission reactor would produce a standing anti-neutrino field emanating from the geometric center of the core during critical operations. If the reactor were held at constant power for a sufficient period to allow for equilibrium of beta decay products you could effectively tune the strength of the field commensurate with the concentration of equilibrium decay products for a given power output. Could this set the electric ionization level?

The mystery deepened two years ago when Daya Bay and two other large reactor neutrino experiments, Double Chooz in France and RENO in Korea, reported the detection of a “bump” in the measured antineutrino energy spectrum with respect to the calculated spectrum.

Like a quantum jump of some kind?

As an aside, about how far out would that field go and what would be its relative strength? I ask because I would have spent years standing in very close proximity of the center datum of such a field.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

Post Reply