# Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Page 4 of 5   1, 2, 3, 4, 5

## alternative model?

.
LongTimeAirman wrote: It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I agree too, although I’ll quibble and add the missing word - all mass is just angular velocity. We know angular velocity is really an acceleration so mass reduces to an acceleration, some sort of gyroscopic motion.

Jared wrote: What about a photon moving only linearly? Would it also have angular velocity? Where's th.e acceleration there? It seems like all changes in velocity must be propelled or caused by something.

Airman. The photon is the only thing real, by definition. We might observe that the B-photon’s tangibility may be due to a smaller photon. Spin mechanics allows us to accept that the photon is real at some scale. We don’t need anything smaller than the B-photon, so we may as well draw the line there. Suffice to say, the photon doesn’t cease to exist when its spin is stopped. A photon without an A1 spin is at only half its energy potential (E=mc) and cannot develop an end-over-end spin nor double its mass/radius.

LongTimeAirman wrote: The very first end-over-end boost the B-photon received turned the B-photon into a larger particle, twice the radius of the B-photon. The end-over-end spinning B-photon is the heart of the particle, it cycles photons through the particle’s core. All subsequent radius doublings occur to the larger particles, not to the B-photon core.

Jared wrote: I agree with this. But I hesitate to differentiate between the B-photon and its motion-path shape as being the particle, in a sense. Yes, the proton is a particle, but the only part of it that can cause a collision is still the B-photon and its tiny radius. So the "particle" is then a deduction, really. An observation. Since the B-photon is moving so fast through these spins (relative to our observations, for example) it appears as a sort of shell, but it's really just that one tiny particle in complex motion.

Airman. The B-photon is responsible for getting motion started, not for directly creating all the motion present. When the B-photon’s energy exceeds the light speed limit, new motion is created, the end-over-end spin. The B-photon’s spin forms a toroidal volume. We’ll also add Y and Z spins (orthogonally nested) but just concentrate on the X. For discussion we should align X horizontally like a roulette wheel on the tabletop. From the outside, the rotating B-photon may be observed forming a mostly open spinning wall. If we’re close, the photon will be between the observer and central rotation axis about a quarter of the time.

The B-photon is not alone, it’s pushing one, two, or three other recycling photons through the X-spin toroidal volume. Looking at the X spin now, the B-photon and additional X-spin photons present a much more substantial spin wall. Those photons extend the B-photon’s motion. As the Y-spin goes through its motions, the B-photon and one, two or three other X-ring spin transients together cause a larger Y-spin charge current. The charge field thus extends the particle’s cycling motions beyond that of the B-photon alone. The B-photon’s motion is still essential – it needs to keep spinning. If it stopped, I suppose the particle would run down(?).

LongTimeAirman wrote: The complex B-photon motion idea stopped making sense. How can a B-photon remember a ridiculous series of motions constantly threading its way through all the particle’s spins? If it is a single photon it cannot, it can only move forward and spin at c or develop or lose an end-over-end spin. You can point to the B-photon and say, indeed, it traces great spirographs. The B-photon however, cannot move between independent spins, else they wouldn’t be independent.

The spin wall surfaces of the particle are defined by the recycling photons within. The photons recycling through the particle do sometimes move between spins, but the great majority of photons cycle through the respective volumes in their paths through the particle engine.

Jared, you guys have invested heavily in this one area and your objectivity may be skewed. I’ve thought a lot about stack spins too. Assuming the above makes a sufficient case, would it be too much to ask you to model another version of stacked spins? Either your own, or I can help

Jared wrote: I would say I disagree, here. And yes, my disagreement may be skewed, but this is the chief reason we're diving so far into the stacked spin's motion propensities. I would gladly model another version, so long as its postulates hold "correct" to the Mathis model at least.

I don't know enough about gyroscopic motion and precession to determine if the motion we're trying to script is impossible. Nested gyroscopes lead me to believe it's entirely possible. I'm mostly trying to demonstrate the motion as Mathis has written t, and if it turns out to be impossible or false later, at least my representation of the theory should be accurate for my own sake. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this process and motion, so I can make a better judgement about if it is true or not. Or, rather, possible or not. The theory seems sound to me so far.

What other model should we try for? I'm open to new ideas, if you see some flaws in the motion I'm diagramming.

Airman. Thanks for the opportunity. The B-photon’s X-spin is (in some sense) the particle’s spin drive that will set increased recycling charge levels in motion – beyond that which the B-photon could directly set in motion alone. We can thus describe each new end-over-end spin as a discreet particle. Those increasing charge levels must behave like nested gyroscopic levels, in accord with Miles’ ideas. Does that sound like the makings of an alternative model?
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

LongTimeAirman wrote:The B-photon is not alone, it’s pushing one, two, or three other recycling photons through the X-spin toroidal volume. Looking at the X spin now, the B-photon and additional X-spin photons present a much more substantial spin wall. Those photons extend the B-photon’s motion. As the Y-spin goes through its motions, the B-photon and one, two or three other X-ring spin transients together cause a larger Y-spin charge current. The charge field thus extends the particle’s cycling motions beyond that of the B-photon alone. The B-photon’s motion is still essential – it needs to keep spinning. If it stopped, I suppose the particle would run down(?).

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that there are no large spins beyond the Y1 level, and that all larger spins are the result of photon collisions the Y1 level creates?

LongTimeAirman wrote:Thanks for the opportunity. The B-photon’s X-spin is (in some sense) the particle’s spin drive that will set increased recycling charge levels in motion – beyond that which the B-photon could directly set in motion alone. We can thus describe each new end-over-end spin as a discreet particle. Those increasing charge levels must behave like nested gyroscopic levels, in accord with Miles’ ideas. Does that sound like the makings of an alternative model?

I can party with the concept that each higher spin level increases recycling, via collisions of course. A Z3 spinning B-photon would definitely have more "reach" and radius and Volume-of-Influence than a smaller one, and thus would be more likely to collide with more smaller photons.

I don't know how I feel about each new spin being a "discrete particle", though. If the B-photon itself hasn't changed radius, but rather its path of travel and VOI shell has increased in size, we still only have the B-photon itself. The new, larger radius from a stacked spin comes from the motion. It is moving very fast of course, but the only actual matter in there is still just the B-photon itself, radius of 1 (relative). It just happens to be in more places over and particular timespan than, say, an A1 or X1 photon with such a smaller radius.

As for nameology, I don't mind if we renamed each spin as its own particle, but the names "X1" and "Z3" and such are far more helpful than any other. I use B-photon and "photon" interchangably, myself, because they're all the same particle. Basically every photon IS a B-photon, unless we defined it as an A1 spinner, which Mathis does not. In his writings, the B-photon charge field peaks (averages) in the infrared, which I believe would be a Z1 spinner.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
Repeating once again for clarity, we always rotate our topspin level to a horizontal plane parallel to a tabletop. That’s the way charged particles orient to Earth’s own emission field, with maximum left spin charge entering the S pole. Even these rudimentary recycling particles follow the same general rules.

The A1 level is the B-photon, radius = 1, moving and spinning at c. Boosting its energy further creates the end-over-end X1 spin, radius = 2. Assuming the X1 doesn’t lose its spin, any photons colliding with the off-centered spinning X1 B-photon are pretty much knocked sideways – in the direction of the B-photon’s tangential spin.

Let’s give the X1 a Y1 spin, radius = 4. As far as I can tell, the X1 is now loosely caged in a rotating plane formed by the spinning Y1. Photons entering the Y1 spin poles are now more likely to be pouring in, briefly blocked by the X-spin. One, two or a maximum of three recycling photons can fit in the X1 toroid’s volume at a time. I can only begin to imagine the motions. If the spinning B-photon is a paddle wheel pushing three photons through the X1 torus, the X1 torus forms a paddle of four photons creating the Y1 charge current. But there won’t be any Y1 current until the Y1 is enclosed by a Z1.

Adding Z1 increases the particle’s charge recycling capacity. The X1 toroidal volume is surrounded by two spins, and operating at “maximum efficiency”. The X1 containing 4 photons – one being the spinning B-photon )” the Y1 spin is loosely surrounded by one spin. The Z1 will not create a current until it is enclosed. Note that every new top level spin appears the same way, a swinging armature of some kind: a B-photon in X1; or all lower spin levels complete with all spin loop photons – in every spin level above X1. That armature defines a loose spin wall that will create a charge current only when it is enclosed by the next spin. I’m not really sure what discreet particle means yet either if the spin level must be enclosed . I believe the toroidal volumes have surfaces which are defined by collisions with spin currents and should be shown.

This Stacked spin model uses charge field photons in order to create a charge particle starting with a B-photon. While it may not be a charged particle without one, I must insist, all photons are real, not just the B-photons. Every photon in every enclosed spin loop is contributing their own extension to the original B-photon's motion, that’s why we can have what appears to be a power series charge current increase between consecutive spins. For example, counting the photons I’ve described, the X1, Y1 and Z1 current loop loads look like 4, 16, and 64 (64 is a guess). All but the B-photon are charge recycling photons. B-photons set the charge in motion, the spin levels amplify the B-photon motion.

Thanks.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

I don't know if I understand where you're coming from, here, so let's go into the X1 spin to start with.

Here I show the X1 spin as a "ghosted path", to simulate basically how it might appear to an incoming photon. It has an axial (A1) spin as well, but...

LongTimeAirman wrote:One, two or a maximum of three recycling photons can fit in the X1 toroid’s volume at a time.

I disagree. That volume has no room for any other photons, besides itself, but on top of that the volume isn't real - only our initial photon is. How would you insert another photon into that volume, though? Where would it go? Another photon no matter the spin level still only has a radius of 1, here. It can't go through the X1 without a collision, and a bounce and exchange of energy.

LongTimeAirman wrote:
I believe the toroidal volumes have surfaces which are defined by collisions with spin currents and should be shown.

What is this surface made of? In all my videos and simulations, we're tracing the path simply for the sake of visualization. The path is not an actual, tangible object any more than the volume or volume-of-influence is. They're just tools to help us try to understand what's happening.

So in that screenshot above, it's really only the initial photon "sphere" that exists. The torus doesn't exist except as an artifact of motion, but it's helpful because it shows us where a collision might occur, as well as where collisions can't occur (misses). Granted, the photon is spinning at light speed still so to an observer it may seem like a real torus.

So jump forward in spin-stacks to the electron or proton. It's still spinning at c, but has a much greater volume of space to travel through and a longer distance to travel to reach its own other side. So to incoming charge, as Nevyn has suggested, it can't really bounce an incoming photon more than once. Other photons it's already bounced may collide with that incoming photon but there's still a large, large volume there so even with billions or trillions of, say, A1 or X2 or even Z1 (infrared) photons pouring through most of them will only at best get one bounce.

I'll try to diagram what I mean in a video. But I don't think I agree with your premise, that photons travel around with the B-photon.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

EM Waves Sim
Apparently, the idea that photons are EM waves with the E and M fields out of phase comes from observations of E and M fields between antennas where, as the antennas get closer together, the E field goes from 0 to maximum, while the M field goes from maximum to 0, and vice-versa, or something like that. So is there really a need for photons to travel in a sinewave motion, as Miles thought? If they do, because of stacked spins, how do the stacked spins cause E and M fields to change in sinewave fashion? Can you show that in a simulation? I don't see how you can, because only protons, neutrons and electrons should emit E and M fields. Isn't that true? If photons emit fields, then there would have to be a field of subphotons. Would there not? So what do the E and M fields between antennas actually consist of? Are they electron emissions? Antennas work in space too, and I don't think there are enough electrons there to provide the emissions. Are there?

Regarding the quotes below, I just wanted to gather them together for further pondering.

Post by Nevyn on Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:58 pm
I am really stepping away from this idea of charged particles corralling photons inside of themselves. ... I had to write software for myself so that I could see the motions and after years of fine-tuning and working with it, in various forms, I can no longer agree with this kind of charge recycling. I don't find it necessary and I don't find it feasible anymore.
_I explain the charge difference between Proton and Neutron by the narrowing of the central hole that forms in larger particles. Effectively, it has more resistance just like a smaller diameter pipe has more resistance than a larger one. It is still the direction of spin levels that determines that, but there is no need for photons to be inside of the particle at any time. Photons just move too fast. There is no way for the Proton/Neutron BPhoton to reach the other side of its path before the photon gets there. The BPhoton has a linear velocity that matches the P/N BPhoton tangential velocity, so they are moving at the same speed, but the P/N BPhoton has to move around a curve to get there. The photon just goes straight to it (the potential 2nd collision point). You have to suggest a slowing of the photon to give the P/N BPhoton time to get there, but there is no evidence of photons slowing down at all.

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:12 pm
_Nevyn wrote. I've already proposed that all mass is just velocity and that is why a new spin level increases mass. It isn't the size so much as the motion. Everything is motion (and something to move).
_Jared wrote. I completely agree with Nevyn's postulate about mass.
_Airman. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I agree too, although I’ll quibble and add the missing word - all mass is just angular velocity. We know angular velocity is really an acceleration so mass reduces to an acceleration, some sort of gyroscopic motion.
_The complex B-photon motion idea stopped making sense. How can a B-photon remember a ridiculous series of motions constantly threading its way through all the particle’s spins? If it is a single photon it cannot, it can only move forward and spin at c or develop or lose an end-over-end spin. You can point to the B-photon and say, indeed, it traces great spirographs. The B-photon however, cannot move between independent spins, else they wouldn’t be independent.
_The spin wall surfaces of the particle are defined by the recycling photons within. The photons recycling through the particle do sometimes move between spins, but the great majority of photons cycle through the respective volumes in their paths through the particle engine.
_Jared, you guys have invested heavily in this one area and your objectivity may be skewed. I’ve thought a lot about stack spins too. Assuming the above makes a sufficient case, would it be too much to ask you to model another version of stacked spins? Either your own, or I can help.

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:32 am
I hesitate to differentiate between the B-photon and its motion-path shape as being the particle, in a sense. Yes, the proton is a particle, but the only part of it that can cause a collision is still the B-photon and its tiny radius. So the "particle" is then a deduction, really. An observation. Since the B-photon is moving so fast through these spins (relative to our observations, for example) it appears as a sort of shell, but it's really just that one tiny particle in complex motion.
_... I don't know enough about gyroscopic motion and precession to determine if the motion we're trying to script is impossible. Nested gyroscopes lead me to believe it's entirely possible. I'm mostly trying to demonstrate the motion as Mathis has written t, and if it turns out to be impossible or false later, at least my representation of the theory should be accurate for my own sake. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this process and motion, so I can make a better judgement about if it is true or not. Or, rather, possible or not. The theory seems sound to me so far.
_What other model should we try for? I'm open to new ideas, if you see some flaws in the motion I'm diagramming.

Post by Jared Magneson Yesterday [9/3] at 10:45 pm
_LongTimeAirman wrote: I believe the toroidal volumes have surfaces which are defined by collisions with spin currents and should be shown.
_JMM: What is this surface made of? In all my videos and simulations, we're tracing the path simply for the sake of visualization. The path is not an actual, tangible object any more than the volume or volume-of-influence is.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

I'm pretty much sticking with Mathis and Nevyn on this one.

LloydK wrote:So is there really a need for photons to travel in a sinewave motion, as Miles thought?

Miles doesn't really think that. He explains the visible "wavelengths" and frequencies we see as being intrinsic of course, but if you study any of the animations I or Nevyn have done, there's really no sine wave involved.

That said, take any of these animations and stretch them out with a linear velocity c, which in general I have avoided for now while we refine and correct the motions to match Mathisian theory. You'll have minima and maxima when viewed from any isometric view, top/bottom left/right front/back, but it's not a sine wave. Not at all. Sine waves don't really come into play except as the false relationship between frequency and wavelength as observed by the mainstream. The relationship is a sine wave; the motion is not.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
Lloyd, I believe you and CC were right years ago, describing Miles' photons as traveling spin up or spin down with the spin axis in the direction of travel. Like a well thrown American football, a point on the photon's equator would then describe a spiral. The pre-magnetic component is rotating in synch with the spiral. There is no variation in the electric component. Often, the zero crossing of electric fields reflects modulations of electric signals, those crossings are not true electric field reversals.

Jared, you’re making a relatively old man happy. Though I may be wrong, thanks for taking the time to show me.

Surfaces. Only photons, including their surfaces, are real. The X1 torus shows the volume of space the B-photon spins through. Y1 and higher spin levels show the volumes of space the spin below them sweeps through. They indicate the locations with the highest likelihood of collision over some time interval. The B-photon occupies 1/4 of X1; given an instant in time, I guess the only thing we can say for certain is that there is a 25% possibility that the B-photon is covering or occluding any particular X1 azmuthal angle.

It’s not correct to say there’s no room for any other photons in X1. Three out of four photons may pass through a portion of X1 without incident, the rest of the incoming photons may be knocked sideways. Agreed, given an X1, there are no other photons occupying X1 except the B-photon. I still believe there are room for four photons, (the B-photon plus three charge photons). I don’t believe X1 could include additional photons until after Y1 was created. I believe the spin loops slowly capture charge which slowly increases the charged particle efficiency. It takes time and a lot of well-placed photons.

If I’m wrong, and additional photons may not occupy X1, it may not be fatal to this model, we only require that recycling charge field photons must occupy a good portion of all higher spin levels in order to amplify the B-photon motions.

For rigor, I suppose I would call all photons A’s, or simply photons. Any photon with an X1 spin is a B-photon. Y1 spins or higher are not photons, they are charged particles that contain a B-photon spinner.

I think we should show a “solid” B-Photon sphere spinning with a tangential velocity of c about its vertical end-over-end axis within a light colored X1 toroid. You could show a field of random photons passing at light speed with an occasional collision.

Next, add Y1, and Z1 with tangential velocities of c, again always orienting the top spin about a vertical axis. A simulation of that motion in a field of random (or not so random) photons should tell us whether this model has potential or not.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
OK, I can't figure out how to give the X1 the next end-over-end Y1 spin without the B-photon becoming magical. Dang.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

LongTimeAirman wrote:OK, I can't figure out how to give the X1 the next end-over-end Y1 spin without the B-photon becoming magical. Dang.

Study from seconds 5+ of my most recent animation.

https://vimeo.com/225368694

What's happening is that an incoming photon colliding with our B-photon imparts a vector and kinematic bounce that the existing B-photon can't deal with, in terms of its given, existing motion. It can only tumble about the y-axis to accommodate this new collision. This is the progression gyroscopically.

Does it seem magical? Yes, at a glance, why would that X1 photon flip about that pole? Because it's the only way it can go. Or, more precisely, it's the easiest way it can move when hit from that angle.

I know it's a weird one, which is why we're here trying to diagram it at all.

If Mathis is wrong on this spin, then all of stacked spin theory collapses. Or if I'm wrong, my presentation collapses and my interpretation of Mathis's theory is incorrect, but he may still be correct. Or we're both incorrect and this is all horse shit.

What I'm hearing from you guys is that this is horse shit. A little daunting, but I'm going to keep trying until I'm positive that stacked spins aren't possible, because I still think they are possible. Not ditching Mathis just yet here.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
Don’t worry, the charge field is real. We just don’t know the details.

You gave me an Aha moment yesterday, HoAh! I can see the B-photon’s spin position within X1’s “apparently impossible” double the photon’s radius spin is gyroscopic procession, the B-photon is turning so fast it cannot fly off tangentially. There’s no physical axis. The B-photon’s X1 spin level is real, permeable only to photons.

Dang tootin adding the Y1 appears magical. Yet come to think of it, the Y1 must be just as real as X1, it is spatially and mechanically independent from X1, the two motions must add. Likewise, Z1 completes the mutually independent set of spatial motion. All three spins can coexist, resulting in the B-photon motions shown, my magic limit, unless you break it too.

In addition to the animation shown, please include the rotating surface textured X1, Y1 and Z1 spins so that we can see the B-photon’s progression through them. You don’t need the build-up, just the motions. We'll be needing random charge photons. I believe photons are indestructible spheres that can come into contact. Eventually we should be able to show how charge photons collide, collect and recycle charge through the charged particle's spin levels. For example (assuming X1 isn't lost), the easiest way for X1 to grow: a photon colliding head-on with the backside of the B-photon could stop the photon dead in its track, it becomes en-trained, joining X1.
.

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected two stutter typos and added a head-on collision.)

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

The more I study gyroscopic precession (not procession, in this case) the more I think that Nevyn and Mathis are doing it right, and thus the more faith I have in my own model which I've deferred to them for all technical aspects, as best I can.

"pre·ces·sion
prəˈseSHən/
nounPhysics
noun: precession

the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope."

So the Y1 spin collision is providing our torque, our second tumble. Since the B-photon still has its A1 and X1 spins, it precesses along those axes as it tumbles along the new Y1, since the lower spins don't have any other way to transfer the momentum. Well they do, but tumbling over the Y1 is the easiest and simplest way, the path of least resistance.

So there's really no magic involved, just a transfer of momentums along with the precession and spin of the lower spins. The B-photon doesn't have to "remember" how it's moving, since the spins are still spinning.

I still may be presenting things wrong. In theory, my model should match Nevyn's very closely, with a small margin for error due to the framerate issues I mentioned before. But in practice mine doesn't look quite enough like his yet so I'm going to keep at it.

And again, this video I'm working on is in lieu of me simply scripting the motion the way Nevyn has, only inside my program. I'd love to be able to drop his code right in and move forward to nuclear and electrical diagrams, but alas, it's proving nowhere near that easy and I'm not a great programmer. Still learning. Slow going.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Another example. The gyroscope doesn't have to know or remember to go up, the spin makes it prefer that motion once another spin is introduced.

I believe this is how stacked spins work, more or less. Note that the introduced spin (about the base) is outside the gyroscope proper, just as our stacked spins are outside each other.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
Jared, Thanks for the spelling correction and videos.

Here’s my favorite, a snippet of Eric Laithwaite’s '74, '75 Christmas lecture on gyroscopes.
Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov

Laithwaite, an older man, is able to swing a three foot bar with 40lbs of spinning weights at the other end, over his head, one handed, easily. He said he was just directing the spinning weights in the path they wanted to go.
Here’s a longer version.

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 1/7

By the way, I've an incomplete project worth of experience with three js, I'll also try modeling the charged particle.

P.S. I understand the professor had a lot to say and he was punished for it. Sorry, wrong again, the first video was not part of that Jaberwok lecture.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Really cool stuff! I don't know how to incorporate it just yet, but it might prove really helpful.

(for the record, both procession and precession were used properly here! I wasn't correcting you, just pushing forward into the concept of precession as well)

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Jared:
If Mathis is wrong on this spin, then all of stacked spin theory collapses. Or if I'm wrong, my presentation collapses and my interpretation of Mathis's theory is incorrect, but he may still be correct. Or we're both incorrect and this is all horse shit.

What I'm hearing from you guys is that this is horse shit. A little daunting, but I'm going to keep trying until I'm positive that stacked spins aren't possible, because I still think they are possible. Not ditching Mathis just yet here.

GYROSCOPES
Looks like you got encouragement from gyroscopes after you said that. A couple years ago we had discussion here with Michael Vacaitis after he had said some interesting things about gyroscopes, probably on the Thunderbolts forum. I thought his original quotes there were really interesting, but the discussion we had with him after that didn't seem to accomplish much. Somehow, the weight of a gyroscope is concentrated at the end of its axis, instead of at the center of its mass. The spin apparently causes the gyroscope to rotate or revolve around that point on the fulcrum. Can the gyroscope axis be any length so that the end of the axis still contains its "center of gravity"? Or does the axis have to be a certain length? Will either pole of the axis work to hold up the gyroscope? Can there be a fulcrum at both ends at once, such as with suspended ropes? If so, will the gyroscope rotate/revolve? Can there be a spherical gyroscope that acts like a Mathis-model photon? Who can we get to answer such questions or to do experiments?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

The spin does not cause the rotation (and by rotation I assume you mean precession), an external torque sets up the conditions for precession but does not keep it going.

The axis can be any length, but that length is part of the math, so the longer it is, the less precession (I think).

You can't have two fulcrum points because a fulcrum is a balancing point. Two points make a support, not a fulcrum. Although it depends on how far apart they are in relation to the length of the axis. I assumed they were at both ends of the rod (such as a suspended rope) but if they are close together in the center of mass (when not spinning) then they would just be considered the same fulcrum, not two separate ones.

No reason a gyroscope can't be spherical, it is just a mass on the end.

Nevyn

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
I’m working with Boids again. https://threejs.org/examples/#canvas_geometry_birds. It’s a particle engine. I replaced the birds with spheres and sprites, replaced bird flocking and avoidance with particle mass, radius, gravity and charge repulsion (g=1/r, c=1/r^4). N particles are described with: 1) position; 2) velocity and direction; 3) acceleration; and 4) spin axis.

After two years threejs is coming back better than I expected. I was mainly observing lively particle interactions. Close and fast rotating particles occasionally threw one or both completely off the screen – in my opinion, the slingshot effect is undeniable evidence of the charge field. I added collisions and it worked fine. Plenty of downsides, the console still doesn’t work. Worst, the marbles spin, but some of the spins aren’t right.

The B-photons are indestructible spheres with no emission fields of their own. We can ignore gravity and charge field accelerations. The only accelerations will be the gyroscopic A1, X1, Y1, and Z1 spins. For each individual particle, we start with position and velocity, just keep calculating and updating the position, checking for collisions – if true, recalculate both new positions and post collision directions for both particles. If a photon changes direction, must its spin axis change? I'm stuck here.

Nevyn told Lloyd – I'm paraphrasing - that the photon’s A1 spin is gyroscopic. I agree. I believe the photon must be gyroscopic as long as its tangential velocity is c. We can play catch with a gyroscopic, it can travel in any direction, and the gyroscopic motion only resists angular changes to its spin axis, keeping the photon aligned to its original spin. If the radius is 1, the wavelength is 8. I told Lloyd a point on the photon’s spin axis will describe a spiral - well that’s true if the photon’s spin axis and direction of travel are the same - I believe that is largely true in the emission fields of strong magnets or high power transmissions, certainly seems true for a circularly polarized signal.

Do we all agree here? Must all spin axii align to the forward direction? It seems true generally, but I don’t believe it would be true for deflected photons. Anyone see any other gyroscopic rules or rationales that might help me settle this one way or another? I'd sure appreciate it.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Did I say that? I don't think the axial spin is gyroscopic, but it does set up the possibility of a gyroscopic spin, i.e. the X1 spin. As far as I see it, a gyroscopic spin is the rotation of a spinning entity, so it needs the axial spin to exist before it can be created.

It also doesn't depend on the rotational speed of the spin. None of the above videos are using spins any where near c. However, it might require fast spins in order to create the orthogonal relationship between adjacent spin levels. My hypothesis is that the very fast rotational speed, with the very fast incoming particle for collision, and the right point of collision on the target particle, cause such a large precession that the new spin level is orthogonal to the previous. This might actually reduce the need for the collision to be in a certain point on the target particle. The precession can do the same thing, as all of those videos demonstrate. This also increases the chance of spin-ups since we don't need the collision to be at a precise point.

But that's just an idea I've had floating around in my head since I looked into gyroscopic math.

Nevyn

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

I wonder if gyroscope experiments have been carried out in space. On Earth gyroscopes can only precess around a point on the spin axis outside the gyroscope-sphere, I think. And that axis point has to be on a fulcrum.

Is it true that the spin causes the center of mass to move to the axis point at the fulcrum?

Does precession require two objects (gyroscope and fulcrum)?

Can photons act as both gyroscope and fulcrum and, if so, are two photons required? And can the fulcrum also be a gyroscope?

If the center of mass of a gyroscope is at the fulcrum, is the center of mass of a photon on its axis/surface where it touches another photon?

Would contact with a second photon have to be maintained in order for precession to continue, or would a brief collision be sufficient to keep the precession going forever?

Should the center of mass of a gyroscope be shown as a down vector at the fulcrum and the fulcrum as an up vector at the fulcrum tip?

Would a gyroscopic photon's precession velocity have to be c?

I guess this stuff would be easy for you guys to simulate. Right? Or did Airman already do that?
(To Photon: "You will be SIMULATED!")

I think the conventional plural of axis is axes. Can we just say A-spin instead of A1 spin, since there's only one A-spin?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
a gyroscopic spin is the rotation of a spinning entity“.

Hi Nevyn, That definition is redundant or specifically aimed at excluding A1. A child’s spinning top is a gyroscope, does it meet your definition?

Ok, Here's the mechanism - we’ve mentioned it before, please consider it again in light of the current discussion. The forward velocity is c. When the spin axis (sa) is aligned with the forward velocity, (or the direction of travel), the tangential velocity at any point along the sa equator in the forward direction will be c.* If the sa were not aligned with the forward direction, the tangential velocity at any point along the sa equator could vary anywhere between 0 and 2c. Given the light speed limit, 0-2c isn’t physically possible, even for indestructible photons. A photon’s spin cannot change the photon’s forward direction. The forward velocity of c will determine the orientation of the sa. The spinning photon must reorient in order to maintain a constant spin velocity. I suppose the same constraints work at high speeds, the particle must reorient its spin for stability – or be destroyed(?) by the spin’s impossibly imbalanced accelerations.

All other things being equal, I would agree the actual collision point may be less important than the direction or line of collision.

When you look at gyroscopic math, can you include the charge field?  I can’t think about gyroscopic mechanics until I perform a good individual photon spin axis change. I just need to show one time collision changes, with new forward direction, single sa reorientation, and rotation about the new sa. Next come rotations about points, actually lines, the X1, Y1, and Z1 spins. I’m aghast at the complexity of rotations; the order, number of transformations and inverse transformations just to tip over. I’m trying to work out axis angle rotations or maybe trying matrices, Euler or quaternions instead. Each orthogonal spin is outside the gyroscopic influence of the previous, we might consider consecutive spins as “hinged” at 90 degrees, I saw that somewhere, it might help simplify the math, just kidding.

* If we have a forward velocity of c, and an orthogonal spin tangential velocity of c, wouldn't a point spiraling forward on the equator move at slightly faster than light speed, c*sqrt(2), but how can that be possible?

Hey Lloyd, I just read your post, it's more than I can cope with at present. Why do you think we have all the answers? Believe it or not, we are doing our best to model this stuff. We're still far from agreeing on all the details.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Airman,

I was defining gyroscopic spin, not a gyroscope. I am trying to link precession (at the ultimate limit) to a stacked spin (which implies a spin beneath it, or it isn't stacked).

With respect to mixing of velocities, that is only a problem when the linear velocity is not orthogonal to the top spin level direction. If the top spin rotates around the linear velocity direction, then there is no adding of velocities. Well, there is some since the BPhoton is moving both forward and side-ways at the same time. However, we would not measure this unless our machines were extremely precise.

As far as I know, the speed of light was measured, at least initially, by sending light from one place to another and measuring the time (the distance is known). That would only measure the linear velocity component because the spin is inside of that. It's kind of like saying that your car is moving at 100km/h but since your engine is rotating then it is moving faster. That may be the case, in some way, but we aren't measuring the engine, only the car. So there is no evidence, one way or the other, on whether the BPhoton is moving faster than c.

I think the gyroscopic math could use a charge field explanation. I couldn't see an easy one when I was looking, but I wasn't really thinking about it too much, either. I was just trying to come to terms with the math itself and how I might be able to use that. And I didn't get too far.

As far as rotation math goes, avoid matrices until the end. Once you know what you want, it is much easier to see how to apply that to a matrix. A matrix contains a lot of information, all wrapped up together. They are great for efficiency in calculations, not for understanding what is going on and manipulating it easily. You also have to know what order your matrices are going to be calculated in. A single matrix can contain a translation, a rotation, and a scale. Each of those is applied separately and the order is not defined at a theoretical level, only at the implementation level. Some systems allow you to set the order, others set it for you. If you are trying to put a spin level, so a translation and a rotation, into the one matrix, then you absolutely must know what point that rotation will occur around.

The rotational component of a matrix will always rotate around the local origin. So if the rotation is applied first, and then the translation, the object will just appear to spin on the spot (axial spin) but from the translated point. If the translation is applied first, then the object is moved to that point and then rotated about the origin and this creates what we want, a circular path with a radius equal to the length of the translation vector, but the first does not.

I find axis angles to be the easiest to work with because they keep the direction and rotation separate. Note that an axis angle does not have a location. It is relative to the object being rotated. You will need to manipulate the rotation every frame, but the direction is setup when the spin level is created and forgotten about.

I highly recommend you create 2 nodes per spin level as this will always work no matter how matrices are calculated. The first group (a group is just a node that can contain nodes, a node is called an Object3D in ThreeJS and it can represent either a group or an object) has the translation applied to it and this group will have the BPhoton as its child (assuming the first spin level, otherwise it will be the second group of the inner most spin level, we'll get to that in a minute). The second group will have the rotation applied to it and it will contain the first group as its child. Matrices are calculated from the bottom of the scene graph up to the top, so this will force the translation to be applied before the rotation and everything will move as it should.

In a way, the first group represents the inner world, to that particle, and the second group represents the outer world. Maybe a better way to say that is that the first group links to the inner world and the second group links to the outer world. That is why the inner spin level is added to the first group and the second group would be added to the outer spin level. This creates a chain of spin levels with the top spin as the ultimate parent and the BPhoton as the ultimate child. You would also have a group above the top spin level and this is where you apply the linear velocity. That group represents the photon itself.

Maybe I'm getting too deep now. I'll let you stew over that for a while until it makes sense or you have no hair left.

Nevyn

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

LloydK wrote:I wonder if gyroscope experiments have been carried out in space. On Earth gyroscopes can only precess around a point on the spin axis outside the gyroscope-sphere, I think. And that axis point has to be on a fulcrum.

Gyroscopes are used for navigation in space, so they definitely have been tested and used.

LloydK wrote:Is it true that the spin causes the center of mass to move to the axis point at the fulcrum?

I would say that the fulcrum provides a point for the precession to work with. More specifically, it provides a resistance.

LloydK wrote:Does precession require two objects (gyroscope and fulcrum)?

I believe precession requires a resistance to express itself. The fulcrum acts like the ground in an electrical circuit. It is a reference point that gives everything else meaning. The power supply (gyroscope) is only useful when connected to a resistance (precession) which is then connected to ground (fulcrum). I called the resistance the precession because it is the work being done, which is what a resister represents in an electrical circuit. The fulcrum provides a point to work against, thus allowing the precession to be expressed. Maybe not the best analogy, but it links the two worlds I am in at the moment.

LloydK wrote:Can photons act as both gyroscope and fulcrum and, if so, are two photons required? And can the fulcrum also be a gyroscope?

I would say that the collision point acts as the fulcrum which then allows the precession to initiate and with nothing to stop it, the spin keeps going until acted on by another force.

LloydK wrote:If the center of mass of a gyroscope is at the fulcrum, is the center of mass of a photon on its axis/surface where it touches another photon?

I don't think talking about the center of mass is useful. We don't even have a useful definition of mass, so taking it to another abstract level doesn't really help in a mechanical theory.

LloydK wrote:Would contact with a second photon have to be maintained in order for precession to continue, or would a brief collision be sufficient to keep the precession going forever?

I assume the latter, or stacked spins are dead.

LloydK wrote:Should the center of mass of a gyroscope be shown as a down vector at the fulcrum and the fulcrum as an up vector at the fulcrum tip?

I think the only vector worth talking about is the torque. That points along the rotation axis and points away from the fulcrum point. I think it starts at the center of spin of the gyroscope.

LloydK wrote:Would a gyroscopic photon's precession velocity have to be c?

No, but since it only collides with other photons, it will be.

LloydK wrote:I guess this stuff would be easy for you guys to simulate. Right? Or did Airman already do that?
(To Photon: "You will be SIMULATED!")

Not quite that simple. Yes, it can be done and I'm sure you could find many implementations on the net.

LloydK wrote:I think the conventional plural of axis is axes. Can we just say A-spin instead of A1 spin, since there's only one A-spin?

Have we agreed that there is only one axial spin? I've made my arguments but don't remember any consensus.

Nevyn

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

How much of this is believable?
My guess is they don't take Miles' info into account.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/vector-nature-of-rotational-kinematics/
Gyroscopes: As seen in figure (a), the forces on a spinning gyroscope are its weight and the supporting force from the stand. These forces create a horizontal torque on the gyroscope, which create a change in angular momentum ΔL that is also horizontal. In figure (b), ΔL and L add to produce a new angular momentum with the same magnitude, but different direction, so that the gyroscope precesses in the direction shown instead of falling over.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

I was watching those videos you posted here and I came up with an idea, and I want to write it before reading the latest posts.

Let’s start from the pole with rotating weights. Apparently if you rotate it to make it lighter, you basically move it in its natural path.

Let’s forget for a moment all the spins and stacked spin names, because I want to describe you what I imagined and I need to use the axis names, z being the depth.
Imagine a sphere, the photon, that rotates about the z axis. Its natural path is to rotate around x. Imagine the sphere to move extremely quickly, the natural path of this new ‘ring’ entity is to rotate around y. This is different than before because the resulting shape is hollow, and more similar to a cylinder than a ring.
But if we observe the initial sphere, it is following that stacked spin path we’re trying to find.

In my opinion, the most important thing is that every rotating object in this universe has a ‘natural path’, which is curve. When we study stacked spins we can safely say they are the result of collisions, that they generate the recycling behavior, etc.
We can also see why the stacked spins are at the same time independent and related, we expect some instability when intermediate stacks are missing, and so on.

We should go forward with stacked spins, and also never stop studying and trying to discover if this rotations law is true and why it applies.

Ciaolo

Posts : 136
Join date : 2016-09-08

## Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

.
Hi Ciaolo, Good to hear from you.

Lloyd, Please note, I’ve almost modeled axially spinning photons below, the collisions aren’t right yet, but now that I can include angular momentum and spin angle changes, I will.

Thanks Nevyn, you’re right, you’d recognize me – I’ve got an awful looking mangy hair loss problem. Object3D.js is a perfect recommendation. Compared to two years ago, there are over a dozen new properties and methods, among which is #.setRotationFromAxisAngle ( axis, angle ). This creates the right hand rule spin for photons with given positions and directions. The oldie but goodie #.rotateOnAxis ( axis, angle ), provides subsequent revolutions about the spin axis.

The attached gif (almost a meg at just 6 seconds) shows a random set of particles with (1,1,1) direction – like the gyroscope above, with spin axis heading up and almost over your right shoulder. The north spin axis is through each red 8 sided prism, the south pole is through the blue prism. A sprite is included – they helped me find a couple of problems. You may notice a few collisions with particle drifting, they aren’t correct yet, I need to modify the collisions by incorporating angular momentum and updating the next (post collision) spin axis direction changes. I just had to share.

Also next, I need to start on X1. I haven’t figured what two nodes you are referring to. I’ll try rereading your excellent advice a few more times, I'm about halfway trough. The engine analogy works, we see the larger X, Y and Z spin extents through which the B-photon must move.

Forgive my absolute certainty. Larger charged particles cannot be formed without photons from the charge field. The individual B-photons drive the formation of the X,Y and Z spin group, which are fleshed out with the many photons that will then lead to formation of the next A spin.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10