I don’t agree that Mathis’ model of the atom is correct however I like to entertain alternative models as a mental exercise (just as it’s fun to attempt to prove a flat-earth despite that it’s obviously not the case).
Based on Mathis’ stacked spin model and Nevym’s angle velocities and closely comparing to his simulations, here is what I believe to be (from left to right, to scale) the photon, the electron, the proton, and the neutron.
The spin configurations are:
| Photon | +/-A1 | +/-X1 | ||
| Electron | +/-A1 | +/-X1 | +/-Y1 | |
| Proton | +/-A1 | +/-X1 | +/-Y1 | +Z1 |
| Neutron | +/-A1 | +/-X1 | +/-Y1 | -Z1 |
Note that “+/-” indicates that the direction of the spin would have no consequence to the characteristics to these spins. Their shapes and their effect on the charge field would be the same.
Argument 1
The universe is most likely to produce particles with lower spin stacks as it becomes exponentially unlikely to produce the next stacked spin. Given that the photon, electron, proton and neutron are the universe’s most popular particles, it makes sense that they are the simplest, having the smallest spin stacks possible.
Argument 2
Stable particles with mass/charges in between the electron and the proton have not been observed, thus there are no particles between the stacks of the proton and the electron. If the proton were 18-20 stacks high, we should observe more of a continuum of particles.
Argument 3
The A1,X1,Y1,Z1 configuration is the first outermost spin in which its reversal produces a characteristic shape and therefore a different effect on the charge field. It explains why the proton/neutron appears at this configuration. It also explains why smaller stacks (the photon and electron) get away with having +/- variations without affecting their characteristics.
Argument 4
Even if we ignore the exponential improbability of added stacked spins, and the missing particles, we still get the same shapes and ever more slower outer spin angle velocities. We still do not get to bounce incoming b-photons around more than once.
Conjecture
An isolated neutron decays after approximately 10-15 minutes. This could have something to do with an instability induced by the neutrons last reversed charge.
Counter-argument 1
I can’t explain why there appears to be a 1:1 ratio of protons to electrons, although this could simply be because we would not exist in any part of the universe where this ratio was not the case.
Counter-argument 2
Notice the density of the electron compared to the proton and neutron? This would indicate a greater magnitude of interaction with the charge field, which may exceed the magnitude of the proton’s and neutron’s despite their greater cross-section.
You could say I’m naive, or emotionally attached to the elegance of the A1,X1,Y1,Z1 set. I think we should thoroughly disprove this simpler set if it hasn’t been done.