The electron-proton conundrum

I am not post this drawing because it isn't necessary to the post and you can see it on the videos although they may change slightly between the current and final version.  I think Inow only have two more to put finish the video and the first video will be complete.   My hope is that it will happen tomorrow.   I have one outlined and the other should not be too long to outline since i am trying to be general and then get more specific in the detailed videos which are posted but without audio.
This post gives the info for the audio so that you can see the way I go about this analysis.

This is a fairly complicated analysis and it bothers me not a little because it is an attempt to deal with the electron weight problem which at best is off by a factor of 20, but there are ways to approach that issue and the way it is dealt with below, althoughoff by 20x gives a great deal of weight to the electron and explains the weight in terms of theseparation of the proton and electron which is observed, even creating a type of "anti-compression" force in that the extra weight is what prevents the compression which is an amazing concept that fits extremely well into AUT, provides a mechanism for compression vs non-compression and is reasonable in the sense that it allows a way of viewing electrons and protons in a way that allows us to use them as semi-stable states.  It does not perfectly distinguish the other information arm loading possibility, but it does show a mechanism for this unique compression ratio which if imperfect, at least can be used for further consideration.

Where are you when I need you?

Without further ado...

The drawing on the left shows the relative compression between the ct3 wave and the ct4 neutron.

          The drawing on the right shows what it might look like if an electron was compressed with a proton into a neutron based on the different filed information arms between each.

          Equal: The “in each if equal” shows what balanced information arms look like, in ct4 each would have 6.25x10^14 ct3 states or (6.25x10^14*16=1x10^16). 

          The ratio of the electron as 1 to the proton as 15 is 1:15 and this ratio drops (e.g. to 9:7=.77778) as the electron gets bigger. 

          To get to the 1:1836 when you use the relative mass of the two, the difference may be explained by the “electron bundle”.  Using mass, the electron is 1:1836 of a proton.   

          At the 1:15 ratio, this suggests there is 122 times the information in the “bundle” vs the electron itself. 

          Building:

          If the information arms build, however, the first arm would only hold 10ct3 states and the last would hold 1x10^16th. 

          Unequal arms have 10:10^15 at 1:15 (one arm for the electron to 15 arms for the proton) which doesn’t work.  The second ratio doesn’t work any better than the Equal measure.

          However, if you look at electron as 7 arms filled and the proton as 9 arms filled, the numbers begin to align better.

           If each arm builds there is a ratio of 1:100 at 7:9 and 1:10,000 at 6 arms to 10 either set making a complete neutron. (7:9 is 7 arms for the electron to 9 arms for the proton, for example).

          Averaging these (7:9 and 6:10) you get 1:5100 which is, at least along the scale of 1:1838, but still unsatisfying.

          So how do we reconcile these and improve AuT as a model?

1.      Eliminating trapped states to get compression:

          A better analysis occurs if you look at what is happening as you go from 7:9 to 8:8, a matched set.

          Looking at the drawing above you can see the representation of loose states to those within a bundle.

          To get the electron weight up from 1:100 to 1:1800 you would need 18 times the amount of information in the bundle vs the electron itself.  This can be treated as momentum or other features of the mass of the electron, but the point is that there is a lot more of this “trapped” information than actual electron information.  You could take into account the inadequacy of mass as a way of comparing the two, you can arguably change the 18 to 16 but that is unsatisfying.

          A better view is to try to understand what the difference is between 18 times and 16 times the number of intervening lower ct states

          The electron in this case is being viewed as the uneven c3-ct4 state at 7 arms, the proton being the uneven ct3-ct4 at 9 arms.

          The electron bundle (electron cloud) of trapped lower states is 18 times the electron itself so that there are more than 2^n times the stable information lower states trapped between the proton and electron.  If the 18 times is reduced to 16 times, then the separated electron/proton pair can collapse into a Neutron. 

          Put another way, 2^n lower ct states can be between stable next higher ct states which is a satisfying if largely forced result.  It is satisfying because if accurate it can be used to predict how lower and higher states work in terms of intervening lower states.

          The logic of the 7:9 ratio is the only “unequal” balance between a collapsed electron and collapsed neutron.  It is actually a nice place to hold these two.  As you “squish” the 2 times lower states out, you bring the two halves together and eliminate time.  The elimination of ct1 states leads to time dilation as discussed later.

          This allows that the unstable 2x part of electron bundle to be squeezed out when a neutron is formed.  An alternative is that it is compressed into or trapped into the final neutron.