# Conservation of Velocity Problem

Page 1 of 2 1, 2

## Conservation of Velocity Problem

How can a stacked spin proton live for more than a fraction of a second? In order to produce any coulomb effect, the proton would be having to distribute its velocity to all the charge b-photons in order to change their velocities. Any stacked-spin structure should collapse within a few attoseconds. What am I missing?

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

.
How can a stacked spin proton live for more than a fraction of a second? In order to produce any coulomb effect, the proton would be having to distribute its velocity to all the charge b-photons in order to change their velocities. Any stacked-spin structure should collapse within a few attoseconds. What am I missing?

For convenience, here’s Coulomb's law, from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Stacking spins. We know that E=mc^2, increased energy is equivalent to increased mass. Miles has proposed that a b-photon can accommodate increased energy levels through spin stacking; whereby each b-photon energy doubling – say through well positioned collisions with equally sized photons - is accompanied by the end-over-end mass/radius doubling of the b-photon. All photon energy levels up to proton matter can be described as variations of series of stacked spins, i.e. A1,X1,Y1,Z1;A2,Z2,X2,Y2;A3, … .

Nevyn has created applications that demonstrate the forms that stacked spins can take. https://www.nevyns-lab.com/, https://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/spin-apps.php . He’s identified problems between working simulations and Miles’ theory. For example, higher axial spins (A2 to AN) cannot occur through a radius doubling alone. What exactly are the Nevyn’s stacked spin forms describing? Minor differences between theory and application are not unexpected.

Protons recycle almost 20x their own mass worth of photons each second. Coulomb's law refers to the charge emission resistance felt by charged particles. If I understand your question correctly – Why doesn’t the stacked spin structure – the proton - blow apart from all the internal b-photon emissions? The easy answer is - we don’t really know. Your question is literally at the forefront of theoretical physics.

Since we don’t know everything about stacked spins, I’ll share my thoughts here. I see the stacked spin structure of the Proton as a continuously moving, two-way rotating nested raceways to and from the photon scale. The photons within the stacked spinning raceways form the constantly shifting internal walls of the proton's stacked spin structure. At the 10^-24m scale, all photon are non-emitting, so only non-emitting photons can recycle through the smallest nested spins. Larger, charge emitting b-photons can recycle through the larger stacked spins, according to the charge they receive. Charge recycling by larger b-photons actually recycling through the proton may be greatly diminished, nevertheless I don’t believe those emissions would destroy the protons stacked spin structure. Those internal photon emissions will either be ejected from locations closer to the proton's 'surface', they are less impeded by the diminished intervening internal photons. These emissions are part of the proton's natural emissions. Photon emissions deeper inside the proton are walled-in by closely moving currents of photons, those emissions will generally join the charge recycling through the proton.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

LongtimeAirman wrote:He’s identified problems between working simulations and Miles’ theory. For example, higher axial spins (A2 to AN) cannot occur through a radius doubling alone. What exactly are the Nevyn’s stacked spin forms describing? Minor differences between theory and application are not unexpected.
I don't understand why the Nevyn's shapes have been ruled out since we are yet to understand the dynamics of photon collisions to make this call. As you know, the AXYZ spin stack and the reverse Z stack produces both the distinguishable shapes (the oval hole and the hour glass hole). If you track the velocities of the photon in these spin-stacks, it produces 2 very distinct fingerprints of where collisions will most likely occur. The average velocity is also slightly different. Nothing I've seen contradicts these being the proton and neutron. If protons and neutrons were more complex, we should observe in the universe far more particles of lower spin stacks. The universe will obviously produce more simpler spin stacks than complex ones. Photons, electrons, protons and neutrons seem very popular. Moreover, no matter how many spins we add on, the same pattern emerges (only that it's doubled or quadrupled in radius) which doesn't really get around the problem.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Why doesn’t the stacked spin structure – the proton - blow apart from all the internal b-photon emissions? The easy answer is - we don’t really know. Your question is literally at the forefront of theoretical physics.
Saying 'we don't know' is the greatest thing to read on this forum. I spent years trying to understand the mechanism of electronegativity. If only someone had the integrity to just admit that we didn't really know. I appreciate this very much.

I understand why you say you would need multiple photons acting within the proton as obviously a single bounce per b-photon is only possible. The b-photon does not get around to the other side fast enough. However, I don't see why multiple bounces are necessary. Both shapes have a characteristic probability of interacting with the charge field that might match up. Is it necessary to rule out the Nevyn stacks (A1X1Y1Z1) yet?

Last edited by jacksonc on Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

The proton interacts with the charge photons in the ambient field, and those charge photons do have their own stacked spins, but not nearly as many as the proton. So we start out with a pretty large size difference in these interactions. Each charge photon is already moving at c. So it already has the velocity that it needs. It doesn't need to take it from the proton, but it can, so your question is a good one.

What the proton is doing, most of the time, is just redirecting the photons. There isn't much transfer of energy in these types of interactions, and what there is, may go both ways. It all depends on the position of the proton and photon and their velocities in each collision. The two particles could be moving towards each other at that point, or they could be moving in the same direction, or any angle in between. I am really talking about the linear velocity of the photon and the spin velocity of the proton. The protons linear velocity does come into it, and any energy that can not affect its spins will be transferred to its linear velocity.

So, essentially, the proton can give energy to some photons, but it can also take energy from others.

Airman's comment about ruling out some spin configurations is in relation to what we call higher level axial spins. I have argued that they are not possible and you can find various posts on this forum about that, but it basically boils down to, for me at least, that it breaks the rules of stacked spins. More specifically, it breaks the rule of gyroscopic exclusion, where a second spin can not have a spin axis inside of the existing spin. This is how spins are stacked in the first place. The BPhoton gains an axial spin, which is fine and actually necessary, then, through some special collision, it finds that it wants to spin in such a way that the existing spin doesn't want to (because of the rules of gyroscopes). Therefore, Miles has suggested, it uses a spin axis that is on the edge of that BPhoton and creates an end-over-end spin.

All of that is fine and dandy, we create an X, then a Y and finally a Z spin. At this point, Miles has just followed the same routine and assumed an axial spin can be placed on top of those existing spins, but I can't see how that can happen without a spin axis that goes straight through the existing spins.

Where Miles uses spin sets containing A, X, Y, Z spins, I allow the first axial spin, but then only use spin sets containing X, Y, Z.

Miles: A, X, Y, Z , A, X, Y, Z , A, X, Y, Z

Nevyn: A, X, Y, Z , X, Y, Z , X, Y, Z

We haven't exactly reached any sort of consensus on this. So feel free to chime in and throw some ideas around.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

.
I don't understand why the Nevyn's shapes have been ruled out since we are yet to understand the dynamics of photon collisions to make this call.

Is it necessary to rule out the Nevyn stacks (A1X1Y1Z1) yet?

Nobody's ruling out Nevyn’s shapes.

I’m happy to hear you putting some thought into the defense of hourglass hole versus oval hole forms - good description. My asking - “What exactly are the Nevyn’s stacked spin forms describing?” doesn’t mean I’m ruling out Nevyn’s shapes. The interpretation that the neutron is the larger opening version of Nevyn’s shapes, makes good sense; a new charge field revelation. I hope I don’t forget it.

On the other hand, the only things real are photons and photon collisions, including protons and neutrons. All charged matter is constantly recycling charge photons. The proton recycles almost twenty times it's mass each second. The proton is full of photons, with billions of photons present at any given moment. How does the proton (or neutron) form of b-photon recycle charge?

Thanks for joining the discussion, even though you do seem to favor electronegativity -
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

LongtimeAirman wrote:I’m happy to hear you putting some thought into the defense of hourglass hole versus oval hole forms.

Let me make a case. Based on Nevym's angle velocities and closely comparing to his simulations, here is what I believe to be the basic set: the photon, electron, proton, and neutron (from left to right and to scale). They are obviously familiar, and can be reproduced in Nevym's spin motion simulator.

The spin configurations are:
 Photon +/-A1 +/-X1 Electron +/-A1 +/-X1 +/-Y1 Proton +/-A1 +/-X1 +/-Y1 +Z1 Neutron +/-A1 +/-X1 +/-Y1 -Z1
Note that "+/-" indicates the direction of the spin would have no consequence to the particle. Their shapes and effect on the charge field would be the same whether they have a - or + spin.

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 continuum of 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 and contradicts my argument that the population of a particle is inversely proportional to its stack count.

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 simplicity of the A1,X1,Y1,Z1 set. However, it looks to me like we are trying to get stacked spins to have photons bouncing around internally in order to fulfill some premise we are taking for granted. Do we really need to have photons bouncing around inside? If so, I will be relieved to move on. I just think we should thoroughly disprove this simpler set if it hasn't been done.

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

.
airman. You’ve got some good looking stacked spins there! You’re probably a better programmer than I, please share some details describing how you did it.

jacksonc. 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.
airman. Granted. I agree with that general observation, then wonder what it's like inside the sun. While photon matter seems to top out at the proton/neutron scale; proton matter seems to follow the same spin stacking rules to fill up the universe - i.e. inside the sun I believe we will find stacked spins of proton - hence photon - matter. Exponentially unlikely does not mean nonexistent.

jacksonc. Given that no stable particles with mass/charges in between the electron and the proton have been observed (to my knowledge), it makes sense that that the proton is one spin up from the electron. This corresponds with Mathis' finding of the ratio between the spin energies being 1820.56:1 (http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html).
airman. I disagree. You indicate that one radius doubling results in 1820 times the mass. Miles stack spin is described by one end-over-end mass radius doubling, doubling the radius, not multiplying it by about 16 times. You have simplified spin sets to single spins. It is our current understanding to say that the proton is one spin set up from the electron and not just a single spin.

jacksonc. Argument 2) Given the neutron's mass is so close to the proton's mass, it makes sense that the stacked spin count is the same as the proton and only the last spin reversal is necessary.
airman. Ok.

jacksonc. Argument 3) The A1,X1,Y1,Z1 configuration is the first spin configuration in which a last spin reversal could produce a different shape, and therefore a different effect on the charge field. This would explain why the photon, and electron get away with having +/- variations without affecting their characteristics.
airman. Arguments 2 and 3 together make a single point. A1,X1,Y1,Z1 may be the first spin configuration but there’s no basis to believe that it is the only spin configuration.

jacksonc. Argument 4) If we ignore the improbability of added stacked spins, and ignore the missing particles we still get the same shapes (hourglass/oval holes). We still do not get to bounce incoming b-photons around more than once.
airman. For a single b-photon and a single photon, sure. My point is we have masses of moving recycling photons and so I believe the single bounce per photon idea ignores the large number of photons involved in charge recycling.

jacksonc. Conjecture: It is widely accepted that the universe consists of 1 neutrons per 7 protons. An isolated neutron decays after approximately 10-15 minutes. This could have something to do with the instability induced by the neutrons last reversed charge.
airman. Agreed. We understand Miles description of how the neutron’s lack of equatorial emissions – due to the direction of its top spin - leaves it exposed to a greater amount of incoming charge, compared to the proton. By the way, in our previous discussion we agreed the neutron would be the stacked spin form with the larger internal opening; wouldn't that make the stacked spin form on the right side of your image the proton? The neutron is then the third from the right.

jacksonc. Counter-argument 1) I can't explain why there appears to be a 1:1 ratio of protons to electrons and contradicts my argument that the population of a particle is inversely proportional to its stack count.
airman. I disagree. There's no reason to believe there's a 1:1 ratio between electrons and protons; as you indicated and I agreed, there are probably exponentially more electrons than there are protons.

jacksonc. 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.
airman. Please provide the source for the density of the electron number you are citing. Photons are over a thousand times larger for electrons then they are for protons.

jacksonc. You could say I'm emotionally attached to the simplicity of the A1,X1,Y1,Z1 set, however I need to disprove this before thinking about additional spins and additional photons.
airman. I don't need to tell you that emotions can get in the way of rational discussion and have no bearing on the physical truth we are seeking. Mass/radius doubling through spin stacking is a wonderfully simple idea. You’re trying to simplify it further. If that's true, I don't believe you've provided the physical basis to do so. I don't see any justification of your belief that all charged particles - from photon to proton - span just a single A1,X1,Y1,Z1 set.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

jacksonc wrote:
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.

But they aren't the most popular particles. Photons are. If the proton is emitting 19 times its own mass in photons every second, then there are a lot more photons than protons. Same goes for an electron, it emits 19 times its own mass every second too, so there are more photons than electrons.

jacksonc wrote:
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.

We would observe more of a continuum if those particles were stable, but if they are not, then we will see gaps.

jacksonc wrote:
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.

The production of different spin paths is determined by the directions of the top most X and Z spins. If they are the same, then you get one configuration, and if they are different then you get the other. The first three particles don't have a Z spin, so they can't differ. However, interaction with the charge field reaches a differentiable level once electrons are built. So the differences in spin direction will not manifest in photons because they aren't pushing charge around like a larger particle does. The spin differences may still exist, but the effects of them will not.

jacksonc wrote:
Argument 4) Even if we ignore the exponential improbability of added stacked spins, and the missing continuum of 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.

I don't believe we need, or are able, to bounce a single photon around within a neutron. The speeds are just too large for that and given that the larger spins have a slower angle velocity (to differentiate it from Miles angular velocity), the photon would be gone before the neutrons BPhoton could reach the other side. It is always quicker to move in a straight line than a curve to the same point, given the same speed.

jacksonc wrote:
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.

I haven't thought too much about why the neutron decays. At a guess, I would suggest that it is because of the larger through-charge hole which effects the neutrons spin given the amount of charge flowing through that region. Effectively destroying it from the inside out. However, the neutron does not decay when it is part of an atom, so there is some difference between a bound neutron and a free neutron. A second guess would be that since the neutron does not have an emission field, photons can more easily collide with it from the equatorial region, which makes its top spin level vulnerable. When in an atom, it is somewhat protected and does not get as much charge colliding with its outer spin.

jacksonc wrote:
Counter-argument 1) I can't explain why there appears to be a 1:1 ratio of protons to electrons and contradicts my argument that the population of a particle is inversely proportional to its stack count.

The idea that there are 1:1 protons to electrons comes from the mainstream, who live by their mathematical rules. They want charge to be neutral at the universal level. Miles model does not require this. The mainstream have a zoo of particles that they require to be created once and exist forever. Miles has a single particle that can change form, allowing different particles to be, effectively, created and destroyed (really they are transformed, not created or destroyed). So the mainstream needs charge neutrality at the universal level. Miles does not.

jacksonc wrote:
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.

This would be true if the charge field is itself dense, but not if it is more sparse. Miles has suggested that the charge field is more sparse than that, and it takes quite a few spin sets to reach a size where enough of the charge field can be interacted with by a particle such as an electron or proton.

jacksonc wrote:
You could say I'm naive, or emotionally attached to the simplicity of the A1,X1,Y1,Z1 set. However, it looks to me like we are trying to get stacked spins to have photons bouncing around internally in order to fulfill some premise we are taking for granted. Do we really need to have photons bouncing around inside? If so, I will be relieved to move on. I just think we should thoroughly disprove this simpler set if it hasn't been done.

No, as I said above, I don't believe that is required.

What I think you are missing is the entire electromagnetic spectrum. There are a whole lot of photon types which come in all sorts of different energies. If the electron is about 14 spin levels, then from 1 to 13 make up the EM spectrum.

I am also curious about how you rendered those spin paths. At first I just assumed they were from my SpinSim or equivalent Spin Path Generator, but on closer inspection, they are different. Unless you added the circles after. They are the same paths that my code generates, but the photon has a different shape. Did you come up with the algorithm yourself, or did you follow some of our discussions on this forum? Maybe you used my code as a starting point (which I don't mind). I'd like independent verification of my method. Jared started to build a stacked spin model in Maya (3D modelling software) and was heading in the same direction, but then I helped him out with some problems, so it isn't as independent anymore.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

LongtimeAirman wrote:You’ve got some good looking stacked spins there! You’re probably a better programmer than I, please share some details describing how you did it.
Thanks! I'm a software developer by trade. My initial attempts had each spin going around at c, so my initial shapes looked more like sea shells. I found this forum and Nevym's simulator and corrected the velocities. I would have no working simulation without Nevym's to check against so all credit to him for the visuals. I am currently using THREE js and an Object3D child and the outermost orbital is a parent to the next inner orbital. While this made things easier, it also made it harder because each subsequent orbital had to move relative to the last.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Granted. I agree with that general observation, then wonder what it's like inside the sun.
Sure, in extreme circumstances we should see these higher spin stacks. But then why do we not see a continuum of particles? The only possibility is that there is some stability at certain stacks. This is the equivalent of the inexplicable quantized electron orbitals from the 1920s.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I disagree. You indicate that one radius doubling results in 1820 times the mass. Miles stack spin is described by one end-over-end mass radius doubling, doubling the radius, not multiplying it by about 16 times. You have simplified spin sets to single spins. It is our current understanding to say that the proton is one spin set up from the electron and not just a single spin.
Perfect. Thanks for correcting me. This alone refutes this basic set, unless the ratio found by Miles is just a huge coincidence.

LongtimeAirman wrote:For a single b-photon and a single photon, sure. My point is we have masses of moving recycling photons and so I believe the single bounce per photon idea ignores the large number of photons involved in charge recycling.
I understand this is the model you are considering? I wanted this basic set to be true, and I'm asking these questions so it can be disproven. I believe Nevym seems to have abandoned internal photons bouncing around?

LongtimeAirman wrote:By the way, in our previous discussion we agreed the neutron would be the stacked spin form with the larger internal opening; wouldn't that make the stacked spin form on the right side of your image the proton? The neutron is then the third from the right.
Yes, I wasn't sure which to assign to the proton or neutron. I changed my mind on the neutron because I felt the reversed outer spin was necessary to explain the instability of the neutron. This was based on intuition and speculation.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I disagree. There's no reason to believe there's a 1:1 ratio between electrons and protons; as you indicated and I agreed, there are probably exponentially more electrons than there are protons.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Please provide the source for the density of the electron number you are citing. Photons are over a thousand times larger for electrons then they are for protons.
If you look at the graphic I posted you will see that there are more lines in the equivalent area of the electron. This would represent a greater probability of the electrons "host" photon crossing paths with an incoming b-photon. I thought this increased probability might compensate for its lack of size and ruin the model (the electron needs to interact less with the charge field).

LongtimeAirman wrote:Mass/radius doubling through spin stacking is a wonderfully simple idea. You’re trying to simplify it further. If that's true, I don't believe you've provided the physical basis to do so. I don't see any justification of your belief that all charged particles - from photon to proton - span just a single A1,X1,Y1,Z1 set.
Agree. I will happily dismiss it and get emotionally attached to something else.

Last edited by jacksonc on Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

Nevyn wrote:But they aren't the most popular particles. Photons are. If the proton is emitting 19 times its own mass in photons every second, then there are a lot more photons than protons. Same goes for an electron, it emits 19 times its own mass every second too, so there are more photons than electrons.
Yes I agree, but I assigned the photon to the very first spin stack on the left. This corresponds with what you're saying. The population count of the universe should therefore be in the order (highest to lowest): photon, electron, proton, neutron.

Nevyn wrote:We would observe more of a continuum if those particles were stable, but if they are not, then we will see gaps.
In this case, there must be some stability found at A1X1Y1Z1, A1X1Y1Z1X2Y2Z2. Everything between must collapse within some time frame to allow the spins to build. This is interesting because it resembles the problem physicists faced with the Bohr-Rutherford atom which couldn't account for quantized electron orbits. Now we have to account for quantized stack configurations.

Nevyn wrote:The production of different spin paths is determined by the directions of the top most X and Z spins. If they are the same, then you get one configuration, and if they are different then you get the other. The first three particles don't have a Z spin, so they can't differ.
This is a good explanation of why this is the case. I was only saying that it is the case, therefore made a good candidate for why the nucleons split into two characteristic particles at this level.

Nevyn wrote:I don't believe we need, or are able, to bounce a single photon around within a neutron. The speeds are just too large for that and given that the larger spins have a slower angle velocity (to differentiate it from Miles angular velocity), the photon would be gone before the neutrons BPhoton could reach the other side. It is always quicker to move in a straight line than a curve to the same point, given the same speed.
I also don't think it is necessary to achieve multiple bounces. Whether those b-photons are immediately ejected or ejected after multiple bounces seems irrelevant to me. What matters is the overall ejection fingerprint created over time.

Nevyn wrote:The idea that there are 1:1 protons to electrons comes from the mainstream, who live by their mathematical rules.
I'm glad you said it, because I wanted to.

Nevyn wrote:This would be true if the charge field is itself dense, but not if it is more sparse. Miles has suggested that the charge field is more sparse than that, and it takes quite a few spin sets to reach a size where enough of the charge field can be interacted with by a particle such as an electron or proton.
That is really important to my understanding and makes a big difference. I considered the charge field to be dense like a fluid.

Nevyn wrote:What I think you are missing is the entire electromagnetic spectrum. There are a whole lot of photon types which come in all sorts of different energies. If the electron is about 14 spin levels, then from 1 to 13 make up the EM spectrum.
In defence of my simpler photon, why couldn't it be that the frequency of rotation of the outer spin could simply vary in order to produce the complete spectrum, the same way Miles explains red shift (the slowing down of the outer spin). Why can't the X1 spin simply vary to produce the complete spectrum?

Nevyn wrote:I am also curious about how you rendered those spin paths. At first I just assumed they were from my SpinSim or equivalent Spin Path Generator, but on closer inspection, they are different.
I made these from scratch with several evenings of frustration and sleepless nights. The THREE js Object3D/Vector3 classes are too good. When I first built it, the photons were all travelling at c. This created varying sea shell shapes. I thought I'd nailed it. I found your simulations and corrected the velocities. The only differences I'm aware of are just aesthetic. I use tetrahadrons (sorry, "triangular bipyramids") for b-photons to better visualise the spinning. I rendered circles for each stacked spin. I also have a circle for the axial spin for logical consistency. I couldn't have done it without your simulations and your velocities. I thank you that I'm not stuck playing with seashells.

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

.
jacksonc. … why do we not see a continuum of particles? The only possibility is that there is some stability at certain stacks. This horrifies me because we are left to work out what is the equivalent of inexplicable quantized electron orbitals from the 1920s.
You cited (http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html) concerning the energy ratio between the the proton and electron being 1820.56:1, so I gave Unifying the Electron and Proton another read. I wanted to reassure myself that the proton is indeed one spin set up from the electron – given the fact that Nevyn’s spin set is X,Y and Z (instead of A,X,Y and Z). I’m reassured to see that that is the case. According to Miles, the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis with an energy of 9; 1 for the electron alone, and another 8 for the energy of the axially spinning electron. Miles then adds linear velocity and X,Y and Z spins, to convert the electron into the 1820 times more energetic proton.

But back to your question, I don’t believe there are gaps in the particle continuum due to instability of spins. I believe the gap between electron and proton is due mainly to our inability to detect low energy electrons with just x spins - they are there, but they don't have enough energy to register with our equipment. I understand that we do see mesons - electrons with a y spin just below the final proton/neutron z spin - in atomic nuclei.

Thanks for the discussion.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

I don't think that the frequency of the top spin level can account for the EM spectrum. There is too much variance. An x-ray is quite different from a charge photon and will act differently in various situations. A size difference, as well as the frequency variations, can explain those characteristics. The frequency explains variations within a photon type, and the radius (or number of spin levels) explains the types themselves. At least, that's how I see it at the moment.

jacksonc wrote:In this case, there must be some stability found at A1X1Y1Z1, A1X1Y1Z1X2Y2Z2. Everything between must collapse within some time frame to allow the spins to build. This is interesting because it resembles the problem physicists faced with the Bohr-Rutherford atom which couldn't account for quantized electron orbits. Now we have to account for quantized stack configurations.

I think there is a stability in whole spin sets (a spin set is a group of consecutive spin levels, XYZ or AXYZ). Why it is stable I can only speculate. My only guess is that it achieves some sort of balance. Of course, there is no equivalency between the spin levels, as each doubles the radius of the last. So the Z spin has more influence than the Y, which has more influence than the X. How can that achieve balance? I don't know.

Maybe I'm looking for balance in the wrong way. Maybe it balances the motion rather than the angular components. Produces smoother curves or has less variance in the speed of the particles BPhoton.

The problem is, once you get above AXYZ, every spin level added produces the same spin path. The dimension that it is based on changes, but the path itself is the same. There really is no difference, apart from very small variations, to suggest that having a full set is better than not. I can't see a reason for it, so maybe I just want it to work that way. Or maybe I'm just missing something.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

Nevyn wrote:I don't think that the frequency of the top spin level can account for the EM spectrum. There is too much variance. An x-ray is quite different from a charge photon and will act differently in various situations. A size difference, as well as the frequency variations, can explain those characteristics. The frequency explains variations within a photon type, and the radius (or number of spin levels) explains the types themselves. At least, that's how I see it at the moment.
I don't mean to split hairs but every detail is important. Are you saying that variations in the X1 outer spin velocity could account for a gamma photon at 10^-19Hz, but could not at the same time account for a radio wave at 10^4Hz? It's not clear to me why it couldn't. Perhaps it could be refuted with refraction or some other property of light, but surely an X1 outer spin could present the full spectrum?

Last edited by jacksonc on Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

LongtimeAirman wrote:I wanted to reassure myself that the proton is indeed one spin set up from the electron – given the fact that Nevyn’s spin set is X,Y and Z (instead of A,X,Y and Z). I’m reassured to see that that is the case. According to Miles, the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis with an energy of 9; 1 for the electron alone, and another 8 for the energy of the axially spinning electron. Miles then adds linear velocity and X,Y and Z spins, to convert the electron into the 1820 times more energetic proton.
I reread the paper too. Indeed we need 1 complete spin set (XYZ) between whatever the electron is and whatever the proton is. This refutes my electron and proton here. If the reason is stability, this refutes my photon since accordingly it wouldn't last very long as a A1X1. If the reason is undetectability, this also refutes my photon since we clearly do detect photons.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I understand that we do see mesons - electrons with a y spin just below the final proton/neutron z spin - in atomic nuclei.
That'a a big deal. I need to look into that. I appreciate all the responses here. Refuting these ideas is just a healthy process of elimination.

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

.
I must admit, a few jacksonc and Nevyn comments were above my head require study. Here’s a good one.

Nevyn wrote. The production of different spin paths is determined by the directions of the top most X and Z spins. If they are the same, then you get one configuration, and if they are different then you get the other. The first three particles don't have a Z spin, so they can't differ. However, interaction with the charge field reaches a differentiable level once electrons are built. So the differences in spin direction will not manifest in photons because they aren't pushing charge around like a larger particle does. The spin differences may still exist, but the effects of them will not.
You state that the electron will not display the form 1 versus form 2 until the Z spin (neutron/proton) is created. My immediate question is, why doesn’t the addition of the Y spin create its own differentiable form? You treat the electron as an A spin particle. If the electron is a Z spin particle, adding a second x spin will create new configuration alternatives.

So, after study, if I understand correctly, it doesn’t matter what direction the electron’s outer spin (or first sub-spin) is in, as its effect is negligible in the photon field. Particles must be electron sized or larger to manifest significant spectral signatures. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks for the discussion/review of angle/angular velocity. I for one enjoy contemplating the difference between fixed radius particles and seashells.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

In the very first spin set, every spin level changes something. It introduces motion in a new dimension that effects all of the previous spins. We get different forms of particle as a result of that. However, from that point on, there is really no difference between consecutive levels. Of course, that does depend on whether you include higher axial spins or not, as the higher axial spins will change the form a bit.

Without higher axial spins:

We have a series of AXYZ XYZ XYZ ...

We look at that and see, ignoring the first axial spin, 3 types of spins. But they are really just the same thing and only spin about a different dimension. That dimension change effects what dimension you can see the particle form from. That is, a top level Z spin will show the central hole when you look down the Z dimension, but a top level Y spin will look the same way but you have to look down the Y dimension. So, ignoring what dimension you are looking down, they are all the same no matter how many spin levels you add.

With higher axial spins:

We have a series of AXYZ AXYZ AXYZ ...

Each axial spin changes the motion of all previous spin levels. It produces a weird spin path, from one dimension it creates a C shape, from another, a sort of whirlwind. Adding an X spin to that gets us back to the normal form, although slightly distorted.

So using higher axial spins would provide a reason for a complete spin set creating some sort of special state.

Please note that which dimension these higher axial spins should spin about will change the path, quite dramatically, but I don't have controls to vary that in SpinSim. I have done it by changing the code, but you can't do it as a user. I don't know which dimension it should use, as none of them fix the problems I have with higher axial spins.

Getting back to the original question, we are just adding a new end-over-end spin to the previous one. Well, all end-over-end spins are the same, dimensions aside, so they are going to produce the same shapes. The lower spin levels quickly fade as the radius doubling reduces their size when you are looking at the full spin volume of the top level. That is, as you zoom out to see the new spin levels, the inner spins effect smaller and smaller areas. Obviously, the actual area is not changing, only our view of it, but the point remains that they are too small to really change the path of the new spin levels, apart from minor differences or what looks like a bit of randomness to the path.

With respect to the large vs small central hole, it is the difference between the spin directions of the X and Z spins that chooses which path you get. If both X and Z are positive or if both are negative, then you will get the large opening. If either of them is different from the other, then you get the small opening. The Y spin has no effect on the central hole.

The size of the particle is important because it has to be able to collide with more charge photons to be considered charged. A particle isn't really charged itself, it effects the charge field and that difference in the ambient field is what we called charged. The charge photons are doing all of the work and the charged particle is just redirecting them in a particular way. So the particle is doing some work, but it isn't the shape of the path that does it, or it isn't that alone, it is a combination of the path and the ambient field. Think of it this way, if we remove the ambient field, then a proton or electron is no different than a photon, just larger. Add in the ambient field and how that particle changes that field is different, but it has to interact with enough of the ambient field to do that.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

jacksonc wrote:I don't mean to split hairs but every detail is important.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, discussing the fundamentals of the universe is exactly the time to be picky, and split hairs, and be precise in our terms and concepts. You won't hear me complaining about that.

jacksonc wrote:Are you saying that variations in the X1 outer spin velocity could account for a gamma photon at 10^-19Hz, but could not at the same time account for a radio wave at 10^4Hz? It's not clear to me why it couldn't. Perhaps it could be refuted with refraction or some other property of light, but surely an X1 outer spin could present the full spectrum?

It isn't only about frequency. Look at penetration depth of radiation and you will find that different types of radiation has different penetration. It does depend on the material it is penetrating, but stick with one substance and you will see that there are differences between photon types. The top spin level frequency could not account for that. We need the size differences to explain that penetration.

The frequencies given to photons are not the frequency of the top spin level. Check Miles' paper The Wavelength and Frequency of Light are Reversed. Really good paper and provides some insight into where the mainstream frequencies and wavelengths are coming from, and it is not what you would expect. That doesn't refute your idea, but it does give you an idea of what these numbers relate to.

Let's look at some numbers anyway, even though we know they don't directly relate to the frequencies where are used to. I am using my Spin Level Angle Velocity calculator to find these numbers.

The very first axial spin has the greatest frequency, since it has the smallest circumference to travel. Given a tangential velocity of c, in 1s, it will rotate 11,664,900,926,195,640 radians. Let's convert that into revolutions per second by dividing by 2PI, to give us 1.85653E+15Hz. That shows you my method, now I will put the first 6, including the axial spin, levels into a table. The last column will be the difference between the previous frequency and the current frequency.

 Level Angle (radians) Frequency (Hz) Diff 0 1.16649E+16 1.85653E+15 1 8.24833E+15 1.31276E+15 5.43764E+14 2 5.83245E+15 9.28263E+14 3.84499E+14 3 4.12417E+15 6.56381E+14 2.71882E+14 4 2.91623E+15 4.64132E+14 1.9225E+14 5 2.06208E+15 3.28191E+14 1.35941E+14

So we can already see that those numbers are completely different to the known frequencies. The Diff tells us that each new spin level provides less room to vary before being equivalent to a new spin level. Is that important? I'm not sure, but it seemed like a good idea to throw it in there.

We can see that they have extremely high frequencies, which we would expect from a tangential velocity of c on a BPhoton with a radius of 2.72x10-14m. That is a very large speed on a very small object.

Where am I going with this? I don't know. I've lost my train of thought and have run out of time. I'll add more if I remember where I was going or what I wanted to say.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

My previous calculations weren't so much leading to some great explanation. I was more trying to see if the numbers could give us some insight into the change points. That is, where a new spin level is added, and if that includes some sort of relationship to the frequencies, or maybe we would see something else.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

Nevyn wrote:It isn't only about frequency. Look at penetration depth of radiation and you will find that different types of radiation has different penetration.

Thanks for the answer and the details. To play devil's advocate, I will look into penetration depth and see if I can come up with a reasonable explanation, but I doubt it. Size is obviously going to effect penetration.

One issue before I forget it: We acknowledged before that the relative mass between the electron and photon are a whole stacked set. That is, mass is proportional to stack count. Mass is effectively a resistance to acceleration. If photons exist across a range of whole stack sets, why do we see all photons travelling at c? We should see radio waves with higher mass than gamma rays, for example. You could say we are yet to detect photon masses let alone their minute differences. Perhaps your the paper you linked to will answer this.

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

While the mainstream avoid giving photons mass at all costs, they do give them mass equivalence. Which is just using E=mc2 to convert their energy into a mass. In this way, different photons do have different masses. Since we are using a mechanical theory, we not only allow the photon to have mass, we want it to.

The short answer to how they can all travel at c is that their size is not large enough to encounter much traffic from other photons. What they do encounter is generally only enough to change the direction of the photon. It takes frequent collisions to keep a particle below c.

In my personal opinion, mass is not really a resistance to motion, it is motion. Being a velocity, it must be part of any collision and it must be overcome by the other particles velocity. This includes spin velocity which I believe to be the majority of the mass of a particle. Each spin level provides a velocity and they are summed to find (part of) the mass of the particle.

The BPhoton itself will have its own mass, which if you subscribe to expansion theory, is also a motion of the surface.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

Turns out penetration and photon energy are more-or-less inversely proportional. If you graph penetration against energy, what you get is best described as "lumpy". This is circumstantial, but consistent with this model of light. Does this mean EM frequency ranges are best described as a series of subsequent stack sets. All frequencies in between are some variation in the velocity of the outer spin? We certainly don't see any gaps in the spectrum. There must be overlap between the spin sets.

Nevyn wrote:In my personal opinion, mass is not really a resistance to motion, it is motion.
Yes the motion of the b-photon is the cause of the effect of mass. I just meant that it equates to a resistance effect when you attempt to accelerate a spin stack system. Unifying motion and mass is a big deal.

Nevym wrote:The BPhoton itself will have its own mass, which if you subscribe to expansion theory, is also a motion of the surface
You hinted at this a few times in other posts and now I get it. Just a thought: if mass and motion could be represented mathematically, I wonder if a missing quantity could be strong evidence of expansion theory if this missing quantity matched gravitational attraction exactly.

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

Can you post those graphs? Could be a good source of data to match to the spin levels. I have thought about trying to build a model from stacked spins using them as the fundamentals. Miles is coming from the other side by starting with the existing theories and trying to unwind them. I just want to drop all of it and start again with a mechanical basis. Of course, Miles is right to be doing what he is doing. No-one is going to believe some new model that comes out of nowhere, but if you can show where the numbers relate to the existing models, you might have a shot (a long one though).

You are correct that we can say the motion of the BPhoton is the cause of mass, but mass is now considered a fundamental quality. I don't see it that way. If something can be broken down into something else, then it is not fundamental in my opinion (and the definition of fundamental).

The missing quantity you speak of is the motion of the surface and Miles has used it to calculate things like the apparent bending of starlight and General Relativity problems in much shorter math than using tensors. The only real problem is explaining where the energy for expansion comes from, and while I don't have an answer to that, the mainstream never seem to ask where the energy for all photons to travel at c comes from and don't have a problem with it. Nor where the energy for the Big Bang comes from. They just throw it into a corner and say no-one is allowed to look at it. How convenient for them.

But I'm interested in getting to the bottom of such things. I want a model based on real motions and real particles. I want to build an application containing those concepts to test them and learn more about them.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

Nevyn wrote:Can you post those graphs?
I couldn't find a complete graph, but this one gives some rough idea.

Nevyn wrote:If something can be broken down into something else, then it is not fundamental in my opinion.
Completely agree. In light of these physics, I see mass as just a high-level abstraction, like heat, or the magnus effect.

Nevyn wrote:The only real problem is explaining where the energy for expansion comes from
IMO the expansion of matter is getting into a metaphysical area that I'm happy to take for granted (for now). The charge field eliminates esoteric magic at least at the sub-atomic level. Philosophically, it's unavoidable that some inexplicable causality happens. Given that mass/energy is reduced to a conservation of motion, perhaps spacial quality itself is an illusion of some configuration space in some super-reality. We already have so much to chew on.

Nevym, I noticed a post elsewhere that you discussed with Mathis that axial spins should not be occuring in spin sets after the first due to gyroscopic mechanics. That is, AXYZA... should not occur, but AXYZX.. should. However, in Mathis' paper he includes the axial spin of the electron to calculate the mass ratio. We're now of the strong opinion the electron is of several spin sets. How do we reconcile this?

jacksoncapper

Posts : 26
Join date : 2018-11-18

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

.
jacksonc wrote. Nevym, I noticed a post elsewhere that you discussed with Mathis that axial spins should not be occuring in spin sets after the first due to gyroscopic mechanics. That is, AXYZA... should not occur, but AXYZX.. should. However, in Mathis' paper he includes the axial spin of the electron to calculate the mass ratio. We're now of the strong opinion the electron is of several spin sets. How do we reconcile this?
I believe I asked the same question you're asking in my previous post. In http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html Miles begins by assuming the electron is an non-spinning A particle.

Please note that over several posts on this thread and elsewhere at the site, Nevyn has been trying to explain the difference , "reconciling" Miles' stacked spin level descriptions - A1,X1,Y1,Z1,A2,X2, versus his own observation that radius doubling A spins do not exist. A's cannot form directly from end-over-end spin radius doubling - the result is a torroid, not a sphere. I must say I resisted Nevyn's observation when I first heard it - years ago. Then again, I don't necessarily arrive at logical conclusions until suffering a few losing arguments first.

Mainstream science sees the charge balance between electrons and protons as critical - which must add to zero. Miles believes electrons are just carried in the motions of the charge field. Given Nevyn's descriptions I now believe the most important consideration for electrons is the size and density of the photon field, clearly I need to reread Nevyn's posts again. Sincerely, thanks Nevyn.

Anyway, never give up. For example, I believe a Z1 can develop into an A2 over time without any radius increase, just a small growth or rounding out, by some mechanism we haven't discussed. This may allow the torroid ring to essentially become a hollow spherical particle or A2.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Conservation of Velocity Problem

jacksonc wrote:IMO the expansion of matter is getting into a metaphysical area that I'm happy to take for granted (for now)

That has been my position as well, but I do like to let my thoughts run through those unknowable areas some times.

I haven't actually discussed higher axial spins with Miles. I need to spend some time collating ideas into a cohesive set of arguments and haven't done so.

However, I don't believe that the removal of higher axial spins will effect Miles' work all that much. The only equation that it effects is the energy equation that uses spin levels to calculate energy of an electron, say, and also where Miles found the Dalton (1820 being 3 spin levels of energy). Even those areas don't actually require higher axial spins, they have just been included by default. They only need spin levels, not certain types of them. In fact, the Dalton may be telling us that we should be working in 3's instead of 4's.

Even if we definitively determine that there are 4 spin levels between an electron and a proton, that would just mean that it goes from Z - X - Y - Z, instead of A - X - Y - Z. No biggie. Since all spin levels create the same spin path once above the first spin set, it really makes no difference. It might in some other way, but I can't see anything that absolutely relies on higher axial spins.

Nevyn

Posts : 1796
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia