# c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3

## c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Hello.

I've been reading the new stacked spin thread and watching the videos with great interest. There are obviously a lot of questions but I'm still pondering on them.

But there is a question I decided to post.

Light travels at c, wich is a constant.
Imagine a BPhoton traveling at c along the x axis, and also rotating at c about its y axis. A certain distance D along the x axis is traveled by it in 1 second.
Then a stacked spin is applied to the BPhoton, and it starts spinning about x.
If the spinning photon is now still traveling D in 1 second, the BPhoton itself is actually traveling at a speed above c, because in that distance D the trajectory is no longer linear.
Is that correct? This would imply that light at all wavelengths travels at the same speed, but also that a BPhoton with stacked spins is traveling at absolute speeds that are considerably faster than c.

Unless (and I'm adding this while I'm writing the post) ...

... the stacked spin is the result of multiple photons that somehow, in turns, form that trajectories we are trying to identify and they also interact with each other to ultimately create the photon-recycling particles. (I don't know if I've explained this clearly)
In my opinion LongtimeAirman is correct to say that the more stacked spins a BPhoton has, the more evident the need for other BPhotons to be inside this hollow trajectory shape is.

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

.
Hi Ciaolo, Thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe that Miles indicated that in some circumstances, speeds above light speed were possible, but there is a limit. Additional collisions cannot force the particle to go any faster, so it develops (through collisions) the end-over-end motion which is itself proof of meeting that speed limit and literally overcoming it. I agree that stacked spin motion is how that speed limited charged particle sustains all its individual subrotations – in other words, as Nevyn suggested, the limit is real, and the convolutions in the b-photon stacked spin motion are due to it. We both want to see charge motion within the stacked spins. Maybe we can collide two bphotons together?

I’ll take the liberty of providing Josh’s (http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t234-mathisian-physics-and-lenr ) input on this subject. I do so because I've never considered the electron to be the smallest charge recycler.
Josh wrote:Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gathers spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin [b-photons] cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

It makes sense that lightspeed b-photons - smaller than the electron - do not or cannot recycle charge, primarily due to the c limit.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 772
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

LongtimeAirman wrote:
It makes sense that lightspeed b-photons - smaller than the electron - do not or cannot recycle charge, primarily due to the c limit.
.

While I agree that they do not recycle their other photon pals, it seems like this is not just due to speed but also do the the shape of their motion. I'm only at the fourth spin right now in my model, but I've always suspected that at the electron level (12th spin, I believe) and higher, the motion of "The Particle" is so recursive and at such a high velocity that it creates a sort of "shell". The electron (and neutron, proton) aren't exactly spherical particles, but their outer boundary is formed by the tracing of the stacked-spin motion of the singular quanta, forming a sort of barrier wall.

In the electron, this shell is just large enough and complex enough to begin recursion of incoming photons. A photon may bounce around inside this shell, even though it's at light speed, and maybe it's just one or two bounces before it escapes but multiply that by however many photons per second may become trapped and you get a pretty decent recycling/emission.

Then at the neutron/proton level, we've got much more volume being taken up, thus those larger guys can "harvest" much more ambient charge. A photon may, say, bounce three or four or more times inside before escaping.

It looks kinda like this (in my motion-models):

(Again, that's only four spins in, or the axial plus three stacked spins, X-Y-Z)

As we've also seen with those bigger dudes, they tend to take in charge photons at the poles, as Mathis has outlined but not really explained other than to say its rotation is creating much more tangential velocity towards the equator. I'm thinking it's not only due to spin velocity, but also due to the SHAPE of the proton's stacked-spin motion, which would occur mostly in that equatorial (30° N and S) zone. The neutron, with its last spin reversed, exhibits a slightly different behavior in its motion, blocking equatorial emission and forcing the charge photons back out more through the poles.

So the larger particles aren't exactly spheres or anything, but the photon inside is still moving so fast it's able to encounter more ambient charge photons simply because it's so much larger. Just an idea, I'll try to diagram this if it doesn't make sense.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Good answers, but I think I need to throw my latest thoughts into the mix.

A few months ago I would have agreed with most of what is being said here. The speed above c. The filling of a charged particle with charge photons. The BPhoton racing around its spin path to round up charge. I'm sure you can find posts I've made on this site saying all of those things.

How charged particles emit their charge photons is something I have been questioning lately as I finally saw the importance of my spin velocity calculations with respect to this problem. The main consideration is time. As we add more spin levels, they take longer and longer to complete a full revolution. Nothing has changed for the charge photons though, they still travel at c, so it has become obvious that the charged particle's BPhoton is not 'racing around, scooping up charge to store inside of itself'.

I just can't see any way for charge photons to get stuck inside of the charged particle's spin path. It is certainly not going to knock a photon towards its center and then race around and meet it on the other side to knock it back in before it escapes. It just isn't fast enough to do that.

The only way, that I can see, for something like that to happen is if the charge photons have their speed reduced, which we assume does not happen (by the constancy of the speed of light). While I am not convinced that the speed of light is a constant, just that we would only call it light if it is traveling at c, I have no evidence against it (only logic).

At the size of an electron, with around 14 spin levels, the top level spin is traveling very slowly compared to c, even though it has a tangential velocity of c, this is caused by the large circumference.

So, rather ironically, I have turned to the slowness to explain charge emission rather than the speed. I don't use any 'capturing of charge photons' either. I think that idea was only created to explain mass and I don't think it is necessary to do that. I use the spins themselves to explain mass which I've been trying to do for a few years now (you can find various posts about it on this site). In a nutshell, the sum of spin velocities is the mass or it is the guts of what we call mass (sometimes you have to unwind how the mainstream measures things in order to find these values, such as removing the charge emission from the weight of a proton).

It does look like the mass difference between a proton and a neutron can not be explained in this way but I would tentatively suggest that it is related to the spins on the emitted charge and how they relate to the ambient field. I would be interested to know if there is a mass difference in a balanced ambient field (instead of the unbalanced field we live in here on earth).

Anyway, back to emission. I've spent many hours over many years looking at stacked spins, so I have a good idea on the spin paths that can be generated. I can see areas that could be used to emit equatorially and I see other areas that could be used to emit through-charge. I can even see areas where there is no resistance, allowing a charge photon to fly straight through. Of course, nearly all of the volume of a charge particle is empty at any given time, so we don't really have to explain no resistance.

None of that relies on trapped charge inside of the charged particle. It only requires a preference on the resultant direction of charge that it collides with. The slowness of the top level spin helps this because those regions where the spin might be used for equatorial emission are where it moves the slowest. The regions where it might be used for through-charge are where it moves the fastest. Even without speed differences, the electrons/protons BPhoton spends more time in those equatorial regions just because they are larger.

Time is important because it allows more collisions with the ambient charge photons. Each charge photon is traveling at c with a definite direction. Now imagine our electrons BPhoton is moving across the direction of that charge photon (so perpendicular to it). There is a little window of opportunity for a collision. The faster either of them are moving, the smaller that window becomes. If we are talking about 2 charge photons, then it becomes so small we can consider it almost impossible in most situations (the mainstream does consider it impossible). But a charged particle requires many spin levels which slow down one of those particles so it increases the chances of collision.

I can't really explain it well at the moment. It is like a thousand ideas floating around in my head, all trying to congeal into a new way of seeing things but it is all still in flux.

I'd just like to point out a major difference between Miles work and that of the mainstream. I, indeed we, are actually doing physics here. We're not just running with vague ideas from authority figures, we're getting in amongst the mess and trying to work it all out. Like a child in the playground, we're getting our hands dirty and loving it. Miles allows that to happen because his theories are mechanical.

The mainstream has never given me that feeling. Quite the opposite, actually. They take the power away and keep it for themselves. They are more like a religion with the high priests saying 'We can talk to God, but you have to talk to us.'. Well, that crap doesn't gel with me and I don't think it gels with any of you, either. So keep up the good work and question everything, even Miles. It is the only way to progress.

Nevyn

Posts : 986
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

I've got the start of a new idea too.

We all agree the recursive motion of the b-photon is not what most people expect. Well then, a collision between b-photons is not what we expect either. I’m beginning to think that colliding b-photons continue to perform their recursive motions during the collision. They become "overlapped" somehow. They may spend a great deal of time dancing together before their individual spin cycles allow them to break apart.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 772
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

BPhotons are inside a photonic wind. One rogue photon B (oh the cause of causes...) is out of trajectory and hits the photon A. B will then be deviated and will follow the photonic wind general direction, A will start bouncing among the surrounding photons (spin about x, the direction of the wind).

Let's say for now that only a hit that will result in B going with the wind is able to create a stable x-spin for A.

We will also observe that while A is bouncing, the other photons will be perturbed. A is rotating about y, so the horizontal photons will be perturbed in a different way than the above and below ones.

And now, please create from here because I'm hitting a wall.

EDIT: I hit a wall, obviously, because A was rotating about y before the hit, so let's discard this for now. You can use this as a source of ideas so I won't delete the post.

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Nevyn wrote:I just can't see any way for charge photons to get stuck inside of the charged particle's spin path. It is certainly not going to knock a photon towards its center and then race around and meet it on the other side to knock it back in before it escapes. It just isn't fast enough to do that.

Trapping is not what I mean by 'photons inside the stacked spins'. Actually it is exactly what you say here. A photon inside the spins will be hit by the spinning photon and it will 'exit' the spins in a direction that is different from the one it was originally following.

We saw with the animations that the spins are not a perfect sphere, the photon is traveling for the majority of time near the equator plane. So, photons that are coming from the general above and below directions will be able to enter the spins easily. At the same time, the photons that are coming from the equator plane will have a much higher probability to be knocked back. (also very strongly)

Are you seeing the recycling motor being born?

We can also expect the photons that enter the spins from above and below to have an high probability to be knocked off from the spins at the 30 degrees opposite band.

I hope this post is more productive that the previous one

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

I agree with these last few posts and indeed see it in our motion-model as well. Something additional to keep in mind: very rarely would a charge photon (infrared, on average) be simply a photon with axial spin. Most are spun-up considerably, at least a few levels in.

https://vimeo.com/188447627

So imagine other photons at the fourth spin (or higher) encountering this one (halfway through is the fourth spin), and we get a much greater propensity for collision. The collisions either add a stack or nullify a stack, for the most part. A head-on collision both directionally and tangentially is (as Mathis has stated) pretty rare, if not ultimately unique. We're not really talking about "rays of light" here, but more complex motions of wobbling, wiggling particles that happen to also be moving very fast linearly. They may indeed dance around each other, momentarily if not for some longer measurable time - which is how we get neutrinos, according to the theory.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

I have an idea: let's say that a ray of light has a certain wavelengths set based on the percentage of photons with different stacked spins.

We assume here that the more stacks a photon has, the slower it travels linearly.

This leads us to expect light emitted by very distant objects (stars, galaxies) to be separated: we get first the photons with 0 spins and then nothing, then after a bit the photons with 1 spin, then nothing, etc.

The objects are continuously emitting light so we actually get these phases together, but coming from different times.

I don't know how fast this shift can be, but being it a fraction of a second or eras, I'm sure it happens.

In conclusion, the farther the objects are, the wider the time discrepancy between the 4 or 5 major light bands are.

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

1. There are no actual "rays" of light. Rays we see such as volumetric lighting in a medium are the scattered photons; there is no actual "ray".

2. That assumption would be false. Stacked spins have no effect on the velocity of the photon until it becomes recursive, at the spin-level of the electron. Even x-"rays" and gamma "rays" move at c.

3. See #2. The photons aren't sorted this way, by speed. Any photon that reaches us from a distance did so by dodging everything else in the field, thus moving at full speed (c).

4. Any phases are simply time-differentials, not due to spins in this case. See #3.

5. Being sure it happens doesn't help your theory, since it doesn't follow the Mathisian explanation of the photon. Infrared photons don't move slower than visible light photons. They have different tangential velocities, but not different linear velocities. c² is still c², you see.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Jared Magneson wrote:Infrared photons don't move slower than visible light photons. They have different tangential velocities, but not different linear velocities. c² is still c², you see.

They have the same tangential velocity (c) but different orbital velocities because the difference is caused by the radius of the top spin level.

Nevyn

Posts : 986
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Nevyn wrote:
Jared Magneson wrote:Infrared photons don't move slower than visible light photons. They have different tangential velocities, but not different linear velocities. c² is still c², you see.

They have the same tangential velocity (c) but different orbital velocities because the difference is caused by the radius of the top spin level.

That makes sense, since a larger top spin radius will take longer to traverse. But what is the photon orbiting?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

It isn't orbiting anything, that is just the usual term for it since it was coined for orbital physics. It is more accurately called rotational velocity or angular velocity, although Miles has redefined it so neither of those make much sense either. Maybe it should be called the curved velocity since it is the tangential velocity as expressed on the circumference, which is a curve.

Nevyn

Posts : 986
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Jared Magneson wrote:1. There are no actual "rays" of light. Rays we see such as volumetric lighting in a medium are the scattered photons; there is no actual "ray".
Exactly what I meant with ray, various scattered B-photons with a common emitter object.
2. That assumption would be false. Stacked spins have no effect on the velocity of the photon until it becomes recursive, at the spin-level of the electron. Even x-"rays" and gamma "rays" move at c.
c being constant is the foundation of both Einstein and Mathis. If the B-photon has stacked spins, it cannot travel at c linearly at the same time.
In addition to that, it's too convenient imo to say that the linear velocity will change only when we need it to (electron level).
3. See #2. The photons aren't sorted this way, by speed. Any photon that reaches us from a distance did so by dodging everything else in the field, thus moving at full speed (c).

4. Any phases are simply time-differentials, not due to spins in this case. See #3.
What do you mean exactly by time-differentials?
5. Being sure it happens doesn't help your theory, since it doesn't follow the Mathisian explanation of the photon. Infrared photons don't move slower than visible light photons. They have different tangential velocities, but not different linear velocities. c² is still c², you see.
You are saying that light is made of B-photons without stacked spins, and that their rotations is the base of light frequency, is that right?
I'm only suggesting that the moment it gains a stacked spin, the new particle slows down linearly.

If all light travels at the same speed, then all light is a B-photon that has a certain amount of spins. It could be 0 or 1, or 2, or probably 3 which is more stable.
Mechanically, and logically, you can't say that adding a stacked spin doesn't change the linear velocity, because if you do, then c is not a constant anymore.

EDIT: this is not a personal attack, I just started what I wanted to say from your post, but there also are a couple of questions so I had to add this to make sure you don't misunderstand. Cheers

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

.
I agree with Ciaolo. How can any b-photon with x,y, or z spins travel linearly at  lightspeed, since to do so would mean the b-photon is actually moving through its spins faster than lightspeed? Yes, the tangential speed of the b-photon is c, but the linear or translational speed of the b-photon is reduced by the spin’s recursive (non-forward) motion. With respect to gamma and x-rays, we must be measuring their tangential and not their linear velocities.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 772
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Good points, both of you. But as far as I understand it, c is not a constant at all, but rather the speed of a photon which has not collided with anything along the path being measured (until it hits the end of this path, for example from the sun to the Earth). I could very well be wrong about this point. I could be conflating the energy equation with the photon's actual speed.

For example, a stacked-spin photon traveling linearly at c does so because it's still too small to collide with most things, and even though half it's spin-motion would be moving against its linear motion, the average speed still comes out to c.

As far as I know, infrared photons aren't slower than visible light photons, or x-ray or gamma ray photons. Do we have any evidence that these larger stacked-spins don't travel at light speed? The variance after subtracting the recursive motion would be very tiny, at light speed especially.

Re: Ciaolo, no worries on feeling personal here, we're all used to Mathis's direct bluntness and I hope my prior response wasn't too scathing. It wasn't intended to be at all, and I appreciate your answers.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

.
Jared wrote. as I understand it, c is not a constant at all, but rather the speed of a photon which has not collided with anything along the path being measured (until it hits the end of this path ... For example, a stacked-spin photon traveling linearly at c does so because it's still too small to collide with most things, and even though half it's spin-motion would be moving against its linear motion, the average speed still comes out to c.

Airman. "The average speed" makes your point, even though that implies the b-photon velocity in the forward direction alone varies between 0 and 2c. C seems like a limit in a counter example: a b-photon traveling at c cannot travel any faster. If it were to acquire any additional energy the result is the introduction of the end-over-end x spin.

My current thinking goes the other way; I cannot reconcile the fact that there is 20 times more photonic matter present than visible (atomic) matter unless I assume that the majority of photonic matter present is somehow attached to the local matter. While b-photons certainly spin at c they can have any linear speed up to c including zero.

Jared, your "How particles recycle photons" vimeo seems to display only lightspeed b-photons entering or exiting the 'proton'. In my thinking the majority of b-photons present travel below c allowing them to constantly recycle through a charged particle domain, including well outside its boundaries.

C and the b-photon is a constant effort for me.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 772
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

If light at any moment has a linear speed below c, we must observe a phenomenon somewhere that shows us an acceleration or deceleration of light.

I don't agree that the only solution to the 20:1 photonic-quantum ratio you talked about is B-photons at rest. Actually we see the effect of the photonic wind in all type of phenomena, that 20:1 ratio is a false problem.

In addition to that, I'm surprised everyone is ready, even eager, to throw away the constancy of c, but that is one of the foundations of Mathis, and Einstein.

Talking about light frequencies, if there is even a tiny difference between a 1 spin particle and a 2 spins particle, than I expect them to travel a very long distance in different times. Extremely tiny probably, but different. Where can I find some information about the correlation between light frequencies and stacked spins? I'd like to find any missed point.

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Mathis has written many times that c isn't actually a constant, but rather the average or "generic" speed of a photon. This is because the photon is small enough to dodge most collisions. However, any detection of the photon must be a collision, so we're measuring the speed of light at that collision as e=mc², of course. The collision is the energy; without any collision, there's no energy.

From his paper on how the photon travels:

"Which begs another question: Why would the spin be the inverse of the linear velocity? Because both are dependent upon the same fundamental factor: size. The smaller the quantum is, the faster it goes. The photon goes c precisely because it is so small. It can maximize its speed because it can dodge most other quantum traffic. But this size also determines its spin rate. Notice that we have found it to be spinning extremely fast: 1 cycle every 2.67 x 10-14 seconds, which is equivalent to 3.7 x 1013 cycles each second. That is extremely fast, from our point of view. But, as I have just shown, from the photon’s point of view the surface is moving incredibly slowly: 3 x 10-9 m/s. That is because one cycle is such a tiny distance. With such a tiny circumference, the photon can move with a tangential velocity of 1/c, and still achieve an astonishing local frequency. "

http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

"Talking about light frequencies, if there is even a tiny difference between a 1 spin particle and a 2 spins particle, than I expect them to travel a very long distance in different times. Extremely tiny probably, but different."

If a photon is moving at c linearly, and the tangential velocity varies due to its stacked spins, it's still moving at c, linearly. Its impact with a sensor or the eye will have a slight variance in energy due to tangential velocity, but it will still be moving at light speed. That's why we have a c² in the energy equation. I believe that Mathis believes it's also how we get the variety of colors, even though there are only two colors at the quantum level.

"This leads us to expect light emitted by very distant objects (stars, galaxies) to be separated: we get first the photons with 0 spins and then nothing, then after a bit the photons with 1 spin, then nothing, etc."

This part is where I was arguing about time differentials only, earlier. Since there isn't an apparent difference in light speed across any wavelength, this explanation would be inaccurate. A photon with two spins will travel at c, just as a photon with four spins would. Any photon that makes it to our sensor from the distant emission object will have traveled at c, since it dodged everything else in the field just to reach the sensor in the first place. So we would only have photons reaching us later if they were emitted later, not photons that one a race based on how many or how few spins they have.

Not sure if I'm being very clear here, so I'll work up some diagrams that we can dissect.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

I understand very well what you said. I'll read that photon2 paper carefully. My argument was based on stacked spins = more movement = more distance to cover.

I read the paper and I can see that while the photons actually travel at c linearly, their spin absolute speed is very low, so until we get to the size of the electron, the spins don't cause measurable changes in the linear velocity. Stack 1 is about 10^-31 times c...

But the principle remain. Stacks double the particle size, so we will find this effect sooner or later. Mathis said that bigger particles are slower because they crash into others, but let me disagree. If a particle crashes can change spins and direction but once it reaches the target (speed measuring device) it did so because in the last part it was that precise particle and travelled at its own speed. I think that it's the b-photon spins (particle surface) that became so long to cycle that limit its speed. If that is true, we will find a constant speed for each quantum particle.

Ciaolo

Posts : 131
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

.
In the spirit of discussion.

Of course  b-photons can have a linear speed of zero. All matter is b-photons, at some spin number. Protons (b-photon with 12 spins) within my body can travel at zero. It doesn’t violate c to find a stationary b-photon, stripped of its energy after having collided with your retina. It will require some minuscule amount of time until it is given an energy boost from the local field. Electrons (8 spins (DArcher at TB says 4)) detected from significant solar events rarely reach half light-speed; though I would assume that electrons accelerated between galaxies can reach c. I also assume gamma rays are comprised of electrons. Why the difference? Jared is correct, the velocity of the b-photon, in its various spin states, is determined by the local field. The local field will set speed limits  based on mean times between collisions and such, to the various b-photon species passing through it.

Miles has described our current upside down description of the electromagnetic spectrum, giving the lowliest b-photon (with axial, A and/or single X,Y, or Z spin (?)) the longest wavelengths, and the shortest wavelengths to Gamma Rays (b-photons with A,X,Y,Z or 4 spins(?)).

Here’s a draft document, I know it’s not correct, submitted for corrections, comments, and approval. Jared, you just mentioned working up a diagram, I hope I’m not stepping on your toes here. Can we also identify the b-photon spin number that would most likely fit into a new line within the following EM chart? I gave my wag. Any suggestions are welcome. I believe Lloyd has also asked for a chart of this sort.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 772
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

I'm a bit lost here, and in strong disagreement with you Airman. We keep referring to b-photons, but all photons are just photons with varied stacked spins - until we get to the electron, basically. Anything can be non-moving at zero relative to an observer, if the observer is going the same speed. A proton in your body can have no velocity relative to your measuring tool, but it's still in your body, which is on the Earth, which is hurtling through space at great speed - although far shy of light speed, obviously.

In fact, we find no particles "at rest", ever, anywhere. All things have a velocity. Nothing is not-moving, that we've observed.

How can you assume that gamma rays are comprised of electrons? Either they're electrons or they're not. They lack the spins to be electrons, though - so they're still photons. Electrons may be pushed along or bounced around by gamma "rays", but they aren't equivalent to them as far as I know. I don't believe Mathis ever said anything about gamma rays being electrons.

But you're not stepping on my toes at all, diagram away my friend! At this point I disagree with your spin-count labels, since it takes four spins (initial and three more) to get to the first "level". I need to dig more on that, though, so don't quote me on it or anything.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

From his paper, "How do photons travel?"
http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

"What this means, specifically, is that if we give the infrared photon a z-spin as its outer spin, we can find a smaller photon whose outer spin is the y-spin. We can also find a larger photon with another axial or x-spin on top of the infrared’s z-spin. In this way, we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on. By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of z1. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it. "

From his paper, "Unifying the Photon":
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

"I have shown that the photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton. The first question begged is, “Why isn’t there a stable particle one level below the electron?” Good question. Why don’t we find a stable particle with a mass 1/1821 that of the electron mass, which would be 5 x 10-34 kg? If that were a photon, it would have an energy of 4.5 x 10-17 J, and a frequency of 6.8 x 1016/s. So the answer is, we do have a stable particle at that mass equivalence: it is just an ultraviolet photon."

So if we keep counting up spins from 6, the electron would be four spins on top of the ultraviolet, or by your count at spin 10, not at spin 8. A full spin level is four spin stacks, you see.

I think your initial counts are a bit off but need to dig further to be sure. For some reason, it seems like the electron should be spin 9 to me and not at spin 10. I'll try to verify.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

How do photons travel?

Miles Mathis wrote:In this way, we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on."

That is not how I have interpreted the term spin level and I don't see how it could be called a level if it has multiple spins. Think of a multi-story building, we don't call the bottom 4 floors a level, we call each floor a level and if we wanted to group them then we would call each group a set. Which is why I have used the term spin set to denote a group of spins, a, x, y, z.

Miles Mathis wrote:By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of z1. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it. "

This quote also makes it clear that Miles thinks that an axial spin doubles the radius, but I don't see how it can do so. If it can, then I don't see what makes it axial or what Miles means by axial. The first spin on a BPhoton is axial and it does not double the radius of the BPhoton, I think that is clear. So I don't know what he means when talking about higher axial spins.

With respect to some of the other comments made here about the number of spins affecting the linear velocity, I would like to point out that the relationship between spins and linear velocity also relies on the density of the charge field the particle is moving through.

Let's say we have a particle and we define it as having a radius of 1. This particle is travelling through a charge field with a density 0.01. That means you could line up 100 of these particles, edge to edge, and the outer particles would encounter a charge photon (assuming a perfect grid of charge photons for simplicity) but none of the inner particles would. Or we could increase the size of the particle by 100 before it encounters a charge photon (assuming it is placed in the middle of 2 charge photons for simplicity). This is how a particle can gain many spin levels before the charge field starts to slow it down. You also have to remember that even though we talk about a particle having some radius based on its top-level spin, it is actually a BPhoton moving around in a volume of space with that radius. It is entirely possible for another particle to move through that volume of space and not collide with the original particle. I have sometimes wondered if a particle and its anti-particle could be centered on the exact same point and not collide with each other and even if they could, how long could they exist without colliding.

Nevyn

Posts : 986
Join date : 2014-09-11