c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

Hello.

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

But there is a question I decided to post.

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

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

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

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

I’ll take the liberty of providing Josh’s (https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t234-mathisian-physics-and-lenr ) input on this subject. I do so because I've never considered the electron to be the smallest charge recycler.

Josh wrote:Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gathers spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin [b-photons] cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will add to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and I just thought about this:

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

Are you seeing the recycling motor being born?

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

I hope this post is more productive that the previous one

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

https://vimeo.com/188447627

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevyn wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly what I meant with ray, various scattered B-photons with a common emitter object.

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

c being constant is the foundation of both Einstein and Mathis. If the B-photon has stacked spins, it cannot travel at c linearly at the same time.
In addition to that, it's too convenient imo to say that the linear velocity will change only when we need it to (electron level).

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

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

What do you mean exactly by time-differentials?

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

You are saying that light is made of B-photons without stacked spins, and that their rotations is the base of light frequency, is that right?
I'm only suggesting that the moment it gains a stacked spin, the new particle slows down linearly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From his paper on how the photon travels:

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

http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.
In the spirit of discussion.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do photons travel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good points all around, Nevyn. I hadn't visualized it that way, that axial spins won't double the radius, until now. But it seems apparent. So beyond the first axial, are there no further axials? Wouldn't another stack necessitate another end-over spin?

I completely agree that this radius is just a volume, especially given our recent animations. Would the particle be moving so fast that its potential hits could be treated as this radius, as a matter of heuristics perhaps?

But given that it is still just The Particle (radius of 1) moving through a volume, it's easy to see how even spun-up photons could dodge most other photons in the field (assuming a low enough density). And thus, retain linear velocity c.

Nevyn, I recall our previous discussion concerning your observation that the b-photon’s first axial spin should be its only axial spin. Miles seems certain, and his radius doubling calculations require higher axial spins. I suggested that end-over-end spinning of the complete X,Y and Z orthogonal spin set might collapse, or simplify into the next higher axial spin. I still believe that is a possibility. I’m surprised you haven’t asked or received any additional thoughts from Miles about it.
 
It seems the electron is the smallest radius b-photon stacked spin charged particle that is too large to achieve a lightspeed linear velocity due to increased collisions from charge fields emitting more numerous and smaller photons. I question that assertion. We may find that the ultraviolet photon Jared cites above, 1821 times smaller than the electron, can easily reach lightspeed but can also be found at lower velocities due to increased collisions when crossing higher photon density charge fields. I see no reason not to accept that large photons can interact at sub-c linear velocities; that is certainly the case with larger charged particles, protons and neutrons (atomic matter). Your particle-antiparticle musing assume both have zero linear velocities.

You asked, “How do photons travel?” Photons travel when they acquire a linear velocity from collisions. They continue to gain or lose energy, or spins, with each collision, but larger photons probably do not reach lightspeed when they are subject to an increased number interfering collisions.

After all our previous discussions, the idea that photon collisions are comparable to billiard ball collisions seems ludicrous. True, the b-photon is in a larger volume when it is part of a larger spin, but photons don't simply cross paths, they weave paths that become impossible to avoid for larger photons. The slower the linear velocity, the greater the likelihood that the  larger photons are involved in many simultaneous extended collisions which we call charge recycling.
.

Jared Magneson wrote:So beyond the first axial, are there no further axials? Wouldn't another stack necessitate another end-over spin?

Ever since I started building my first stacked spin simulator, I realised that there could not be any axial spins above the first. When you are trying to model these things you have to dig deep into what they are and how they work, as you know, and I quickly hit a problem when dealing with higher axial spins. Either the higher axial spin doubles the radius or it does not. There is no middle ground and I don't see how it can be called axial if the spin axis doesn't go through the center of what is spinning. To me, that is what axial rotation means. The object must spin about its own center which in the case of a higher axial spin would mean through the center of the last Z spin.

If we assume that it does double the radius in some way, what dimension is it spinning about? It can't be X, Y or Z because they come next. There are only 3 dimensions so what is the direction of the higher axial spin axis? It just doesn't make any sense.

I just ignored them. I programmed them in but never used them. I don't believe removing higher axial spins causes any problems with Miles theory except changing some of the math occasionally. It certainly hasn't halted my own progress.

Jared Magneson wrote:Would the particle be moving so fast that its potential hits could be treated as this radius, as a matter of heuristics perhaps?

I don't think so. This is the realisation I hit recently. I had this vague idea that the spins happened so fast that they would appear as a boundary to charge photons. But once I started to work with both spin and linear velocity, I realised that they can't move that fast because both the linear velocity and the tangential velocities are the same, c. Add in the radius of each spin level and you realise that they rotate slower the higher they are. When you reach an electron, with about 14 spin levels, the top spin level is rotating quite slowly with respect to c.

That seems like such a weird statement: something moving at c can be considered slow with respect to c. It is true none-the-less because it is the rotation, not the tangential velocity, that is slow.

Even if we just consider the collisions we don't find that radius because collisions can happen at any point in the cycle, whether the BPhoton is on the outside edge or in the middle. The only way to find that radius through collisions is to look at the maximum radius that a collision occurs at, assuming you could know what the center is.

The problem of the higher axial spins is actually affecting me at the moment. I am working on calculating the position and orientation of a BPhoton given any number of spin levels. This removes the need for all of those translation and rotation groups (or pivot points) we have used in our stacked spin models. Instead, I just calculate a single matrix that puts the BPhoton in the correct place (which is just what the 3D system does with those groups anyway). I am doing this on the GPU for efficiency reasons so, in theory, I could have (2.1 / max spin levels) billion photons within the same data structure, each with its own spin levels (but a common maximum number of spin levels, but they can be individually turned off so you can still have 1 photon with 4 spins and another with 6 spins, for example).

I have to deal with those higher axial spins knowing that I won't personally use them. They usually don't get in the way, but they do take up space in the data and time in the calculations so I would prefer to remove them completely. Maybe it's time to confront Miles about them. I need a definitive answer as to whether they exist or not and if so, how they operate. Personally, I just can't see how they can exist.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Nevyn, I recall our previous discussion concerning your observation that the b-photon’s first axial spin should be its only axial spin. Miles seems certain, and his radius doubling calculations require higher axial spins.

Miles current math uses those higher axial spins, but it doesn't require them. We could easily re-write the equations without them.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I suggested that end-over-end spinning of the complete X,Y and Z orthogonal spin set might collapse, or simplify into the next higher axial spin. I still believe that is a possibility.

I don't understand this. The X and Y spins don't collapse or simplify into the Z spin, so why would the Z spin do so? Miles explicitly calls the higher axial spin an end-over-end spin so it is just like any other spin level. There is nothing special about it apart from the name. But a spin level has both a radius and a rotation axis and that axis must be outside the gyroscopic influence of the inner spins. That's what gives it the end-over-end motion. So how can it possibly be axial? End-over-end spin means rotating about an edge where-as axial spin means rotating about a center. The two just don't equate.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I’m surprised you haven’t asked or received any additional thoughts from Miles about it.

That's because I haven't asked. I try to figure things out on my own in the first instance. I ask you guys for help in the second instance (with respect to Miles work). As I said in my response to Jared, I think it is time I did so though.
 

LongtimeAirman wrote:It seems the electron is the smallest radius b-photon stacked spin charged particle that is too large to achieve a lightspeed linear velocity due to increased collisions from charge fields emitting more numerous and smaller photons. I question that assertion. We may find that the ultraviolet photon Jared cites above, 1821 times smaller than the electron, can easily reach lightspeed but can also be found at lower velocities due to increased collisions when crossing higher photon density charge fields. I see no reason not to accept that large photons can interact at sub-c linear velocities; that is certainly the case with larger charged particles, protons and neutrons (atomic matter).

This is a tricky question to answer definitively. When we measure light, we don't measure an individual photon, we measure a lot of them. So the speed of light is just an average. There could certainly be specific photons moving slower than c.

Maybe a better question to ask is what would a slow photon look like?

The answer is, it depends on what you are measuring. If we are measuring the frequency or wavelength, then it would just look like a smaller photon because its internal frequency/wavelength would not be stretched out as much as it would be if it was travelling at c so the frequency would be measured as faster than a UV photon, for example, and the wavelength would be shorter.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Your particle-antiparticle musing assume both have zero linear velocities.

It assumes they have a common linear velocity, not necessarily zero. But yes, I was thinking of them spinning without any linear velocity.

LongtimeAirman wrote:You asked, “How do photons travel?” Photons travel when they acquire a linear velocity from collisions. They continue to gain or lose energy, or spins, with each collision, but larger photons probably do not reach lightspeed when they are subject to an increased number interfering collisions.

That was just a link to Miles paper containing the quotes I used. I wasn't actually asking the question.

LongtimeAirman wrote:After all our previous discussions, the idea that photon collisions are comparable to billiard ball collisions seems ludicrous. True, the b-photon is in a larger volume when it is part of a larger spin, but photons don't simply cross paths, they weave paths that become impossible to avoid for larger photons. The slower the linear velocity, the greater the likelihood that the  larger photons are involved in many simultaneous extended collisions which we call charge recycling.
.

Yes, billiard ball mechanics is true to a certain extent, but our particles enjoy more freedom than a billiard ball so it is a bit more complicated.

The weaving paths don't make it impossible to avoid a collision, just less likely.

I'm very interested in your progress programming this phenomenon, Nevyn, since you're one of the few in any position to help me diagram it as well. Your model/programming is by no means less... important or critical than mine, mine just makes it easier to use in "movie" animations is all. If I could just import your setup directly into Maya we'd be so much further along, and ready to tackle electricity and inter-atomic motions too, but it's just so tedious on my end. I really appreciate your work on this and your patience with my misunderstandings and errors.

Keep calling it like you see it, sir.

My hope is to implement stacked spin collisions using this new model. That's why I need so many photons (well, I don't need billions of them). I have the first level of math worked out, in theory as I haven't tested it yet. It's all based on a single equation for determining the rotation angle of a spin level. I call it the Pivoter Equation because of its form: Pivt/4r (Pi=3.14 but it uses both version of Pi since the 4r is referring to kinematic Pi) and it is used to pivot between tangential velocities and angles. Where v is the tangential velocity, t is the time since last update (ie delta t) and r is the radius of the spin level. I work out the rotation angle for each spin level and then create a matrix containing the translation and rotation per level. Then I just multiply all of those matrices together to get the final matrix for that photon. Fairly simple, really. The implementation is proving a bit troublesome though. Working on the GPU is a bit of a pain when things don't work as you expect. Very hard to debug the code when it runs somewhere that you can't reach and can't do simple things like print out a debug message. It's fun though.

I'm sure we could get this working in Maya once you have some experience with scripting. It would be even better if you can write to the GPU in Maya but we don't need that to implement a single photon or even just a few photons. I've had to move back to Java for this work as I couldn't get direct access to the GPU in a browser. In theory I can through an API called WebCL but no browsers have implemented it and the third party versions are a little bit of a pain. I tried to use the WebGL API (which ThreeJS is based on) which gives me shaders to work with, but they are a bit too cumbersome for this type of work. I'll see where it leads and look at working back towards a browser at some point in the future. Hopefully the WebCL API has been accepted by then.

We should have no problem writing to the GPU in Maya - all my Nucleus™ dynamics (nDynamics) already use the GPU readily, as well as the Viewport using it exclusively. All the vids I've done have been GPU-based so far, in this regard.

But how do we test this at light speed? I've never made a scene anywhere near the length (size) that light travels in one second, so that may be another barrier for me down the road. Your math seems pretty clean so far. I'll keep plugging away at PyMEL until I can get somewhere useful with it.

What I'd like to do ideally would be attach the camera to one, main photon and then "film" its travels as it gets bombarded by other photons, or misses them, as the case may be. In one second alone there could be many hits/misses, so if we stretch that second out into 60 (time-lapse it, basically), we may get a good visual representation to work with. Just some ideas.

Jared Magneson wrote:We should have no problem writing to the GPU in Maya - all my Nucleus™ dynamics (nDynamics) already use the GPU readily, as well as the Viewport using it exclusively. All the vids I've done have been GPU-based so far, in this regard.

From my perspective, there is a big difference between using the GPU and having access to it. I'm sure Maya uses the GPU as much as it can, and since GPUs are designed for such applications, that is a lot. But it is another thing to give Maya users access to the GPU through code. If it can accept OpenCL code then it does (or it might use CUDA, but I hope not) and we can do some truly magical things with it.

Jared Magneson wrote:But how do we test this at light speed? I've never made a scene anywhere near the length (size) that light travels in one second, so that may be another barrier for me down the road.

You don't need to work at light speed, you just need to make sure that everything is moving at the correct speed relative to each other. We want to see what is going on at this small scale so we don't want them rushing around at extremely fast speeds. We want to see them in slow motion so we can study what they do. You set time in the model by specifying the value of t in my equation above. You might tell the model that 1ns has gone by but in reality, 10ms have actually passed. On the next frame, 12ms might have passed but we still tell the model that 1ns has passed. At least, if you were recording the frames for a video that is what you would do. For viewing by a human, you let the model time vary based on the real time that has varied so that it doesn't slow down and speed up (but can suddenly jump).

Jared Magneson wrote:Your math seems pretty clean so far. I'll keep plugging away at PyMEL until I can get somewhere useful with it.

Yeah, there isn't much to it at the moment. I want to make the spin calculations as efficient as possible to make room (time) for the collision calculations which will be much more expensive. That is the real work in this project. I have a reasonable idea of how it works but am yet to attempt any math and logic.

If you want to play with my equation, then it might help if I break it down a bit so you can see what it is doing and why.

A = Pi * vt / 4r

There are 3 parts to the equation: a circle and two distances. The full equation is 2Pivt/8r which shows us a bit more than the reduced form. You can see that 2Pi represents a circle. 8r represents the circumference of the spin level (2*KPi*r). That is the kinematic Pi being used. The tangential velocity and the time are multiplied together to give us the distance traveled at that velocity in that time since v = d/t => d = vt.

We take the distance traveled (if we were moving in a straight line) and divide it by the circumference of the level. This gives us the distance traveled as a percentage of the circumference. We then multiply that by 2Pi to give us an angle. That angle can be larger than 2Pi as it represents the complete motion which could include multiple revolutions of the spin level. I keep 2 copies of that value around: one as-is so I can always tell the full rotation if I want it and another that is between 0 and 2Pi so that I can use that in any graphics math since I just want to know where it is to render it.

The angle represents the amount of rotation in the time given. You can give the equation an absolute time (more of an elapsed time) and it will give you an absolute angle or you can give it delta time and it will give you a delta angle. It is the angular motion equivalent of d=vt and can be used in the same way. It basically converts between tangential velocity and angular velocity as defined by the mainstream, not Miles, but it is doing it in a Mathis way. Strange, I know.

At a cursory glance that seems to follow just fine, quite elegant really. Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking and math, and it certainly seems useful to simplify the math so we can feed more instances into the calculation later. I do need to study your equation more as it's hard to visualize for me, but your logic seems sound for sure.

(Tech Note) Inside Maya, Bullet and a few other PhysX-based sims use CUDA but OpenCL should be far more accessible. Either way, there's quite a bit of CPU firepower around here to be used if need be to get things started, 34 cores in play if I pile them all up. Still, a hundred times that in GPU cores, so of course that would be ideal.

Pretty genius "Mathism" at the end there too, by the way.

I still need to read the last 3 posts but I have to write this:

(I'm using rough numbers for brevity)
A B-photon with 0 spins moves 300,000 km in 1 second.
If it has 1 spin, in that second it also completes 1300 cycles. It will have travelled 300,000 km - 10^-25 m. There's so tiny a difference that it can be ignored, and also it can't be measured.

Stack spin after spin and you will double that tiny difference every time. You'll surely reach a number of stacked spins where that difference can't be ignored any more, and also it will be measured in experiments.

This is why infrared-photon and ultraviolet-photon are treated like light and electron-photon is treated like a particle, even if they all are B-photons with a stable number of stacks. (IR has 3 spins, UV has 6 and electron has 9)

I'm not sure about the number of spins, but that is the principle I'm trying to explain. And that is taken directly from the photon2 paper, from the part where Mathis explains why he is taking c as linear speed.

.
Airman wrote:I suggested that end-over-end spinning of the complete X,Y and Z orthogonal spin set might collapse, or simplify into the next higher axial spin. I still believe that is a possibility.

Nevyn wrote. I don't understand this. The X and Y spins don't collapse or simplify into the Z spin, so why would the Z spin do so? Miles explicitly calls the higher axial spin an end-over-end spin so it is just like any other spin level. There is nothing special about it apart from the name. But a spin level has both a radius and a rotation axis and that axis must be outside the gyroscopic influence of the inner spins. That's what gives it the end-over-end motion. So how can it possibly be axial? End-over-end spin means rotating about an edge where-as axial spin means rotating about a center. The two just don't equate.

Airman. Assume we have a complete orthogonal spin set, ie. X,Y and Z.  The next end-over-end spin radius doubling must be another X or Y spin – reorient that to the top horizontal for reference. I believe that a vertically oriented tangential collision will convert that horizontal toroidal volume into a spherical one.

You had shared your observation that you could not find a physical cause for higher axial spins in https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t118p25-stacked-spin-motion-simulator#1237.

Nevyn. Let's try this from a different perspective. I want you to see that the spin axis required to turn a torus into a sphere does not go directly through the central hole but must pass through the body of the torus.

Airman. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I agree. The resulting spherical axis will form along a horizontal line passing through the toroid center and also through the toroid’s body, but it does not pass through the b-photon which is at the “tangential” collision point near the outer edge of the torus as the new spherical axis is formed.

Any such vertical collision can give any torus a spherical spin. The problem is that a stable axial spin cannot occur without a complete orthogonal spin set.
.

Ciaolo wrote:
A B-photon with 0 spins moves 300,000 km in 1 second.
If it has 1 spin, in that second it also completes 1300 cycles. It will have travelled 300,000 km - 10^-25 m. There's so tiny a difference that it can be ignored, and also it can't be measured.

Stack spin after spin and you will double that tiny difference every time. You'll surely reach a number of stacked spins where that difference can't be ignored any more, and also it will be measured in experiments.

I'm totally with you here. The spin offset (we can call it) of the first stacked spin is then 0.0000000000000000000000002 meters, and as you can see we have to double it many times to get to any appreciable size at the macro level, but relative to the single-axial-spin photon the electron is still very large.

Ciaolo wrote:This is why infrared-photon and ultraviolet-photon are treated like light and electron-photon is treated like a particle, even if they all are B-photons with a stable number of stacks.

I think this may have been true traditionally, but in "our" physics they're all the same particle. Light is just a word. The electron's volume of influence (travel volume?) is much bigger, but it's also still dodging most of the charge around it simply because that fundamental particle is still the same size it always was; it's just traveling in a larger volume and happens to be more recursive (doubling back on its previous motions) than smaller-spin particles. So I think what's happening is that it collides with a smaller photon and then collides with it again, and again, and is doing this with multiple photons over a given dt.

We know from Mathis that the electron is recycling/emitting ~35,000 times its own mass in photons per second (19*1821) which could indicate that, given my hypothesis above, it's possibly colliding with a given photon multiple times before emitting it. But does it mean that the electron has collided with EVERY photon that is being recycled?

A great many photons may pass through this volume untouched and unscathed, but those wouldn't be part of its emission proper. And what would this look like? This is what we're hell-bent on diagramming, here, to understand how photons traveling at c interact with larger particles traveling subliminal.

@Airman:

Keep in mind that the spin volume only "forms" an actual torus on the x1 spin, or the first stacked spin beyond the axial. All higher stacked spins form much more complex shapes and the torus is not accurate or useful as a descriptor after that.

Refer to my video again if it helps, although we do need to update it and (hopefully) take it all the way through to the electron level, at some point.

https://vimeo.com/188447627

Here is a photon with A, X, Y and Z spins.

(Click on the image for a higher resolution version)



We want to rotate that around the Y axis to add an axial spin level.



Which gives us this:



The higher axial spin does not produce a sphere from a full spin set and it does not increase the radius. This is because the motions are integrated, not merely added together.

It appears that the path is changed, but not the radius, which makes sense. So does that mean we keep the higher axial spins in the physics, but exclude them from radius calculations?

Nevyn wrote: Here is a photon with A, X, Y and Z spins. …
We want to rotate that around the Y axis to add an axial spin level. …
The higher axial spin does not produce a sphere from a full spin set and it does not increase the radius. This is because the motions are integrated, not merely added together.

My assumption stated that we start with a full X,Y,Z set. To produce a new axial spin requires two actions: 1) The next spin added will be an end-over-end X or Y spin that doubles the radius from the previous Z; 2) Convert that second X (or Y) into a new A by a tangential collision. I understand that we are talking about a b-photon moving through its integrated spin states while limited to the toroidal volume.

I've given you my best guess. I'm not convinced that there aren’t any higher A spins. I believe they are required in order to properly understand the 1851 energy multiplier for each complete spin set (A,X,Y,Z). Before developing your competing theory, please ask Miles for a comment.
.

Would an additional axial spin add any more energy to the equation, though? Does it add mass somehow, or velocity? To add energy, we either need to increase mass or velocity (e=mc², of course).

I can see how the first axial spin would increase energy in a collision, since we have both a linear velocity and a tangential velocity in play (c²). A non-spinning, moving particle would not have that additional velocity to add in. But would a higher-spin set/level add any more tangential velocity to our particle?

The higher axial spin I added is actually illegal because the spin axis (the arrow) goes through the previous path. I just wanted to show that an axial spin does not make a sphere from a torus, in this case. It is an interesting shape though.

If I had added another end-over-end spin instead of an axial spin then it would just end up with the same shaped path but on a different axis. That is, the images I presented spin around the Z axis but the next end-over-end spin would spin about the X axis. Same shape, longer path, different axis.

Now I want to show that the same general path is presented for all spin levels, no matter how many spin sets are used. Here is a series of images showing complete spin sets (X, Y, Z, only the first spin level is axial). This ranges from the smallest photon up to an electron or somewhere close to it.

Spin Set 1



Spin Set 2



Spin Set 3



Spin Set 4



Spin Set 5



As we add more spin sets, the path becomes more erratic, in a way. It is like the artist keeps having a few drinks in between drawings and can't keep the pencil straight.

This just shows that we don't really need to animate all the way up to an electron, since the same general path will be found at every level. Showing only 2 or 3 spin sets is enough to get the idea of how they form.

That sure makes things easier, Nevyn!

But wouldn't that only be true along one spin-set... Uhm, direction? What if we have a -x spin instead of a positive in there, or combinations of these? It seems like there are four possible next-spin-stack motions, as there's no reason a z-spin couldn't come before an x-spin (that I can think of).

So we have an axial spin along y as the first spin, then:
+x
-x
+z
-z
as possible next spins. We've only done it in x,y,z order for ease of reference, correct?

Or am I way off here? Is there any reason an axial-spin particle must go +x next, as opposed to -x or either z?

And more importantly, if it did go either direction depending on the collider's vector, would this change your volume-shape among the various stack-sets?

LongtimeAirman wrote:I'm not convinced that there aren’t any higher A spins. I believe they are required in order to properly understand the 1851 energy multiplier for each complete spin set (A,X,Y,Z).
.

Having higher axial spins does not affect the 1821 energy multiplier because that is caused by an end-over-end spin, which we still have. The only thing it does is affect the general equation it comes from by removing the axial spins so we have sets of 3 instead of 4. Since the 1821 number comes from the energy difference between 2 spin levels, differing by an end-over-end spin and a radius doubling, the axial spins do not actually have that energy difference. I can't see how a higher axial spin can increase the energy at all. It changes the motion but does not increase the energy and that sounds like a paradox to me.

To be clear, if you take an axial spin and add an end-over-end spin to that, then you will increase the energy, double the radius, etc. However, if you take an existing stacked spin and give it an axial spin on top, then I don't see how the energy is added to the particle.

Using negative spins (ie. they rotate in the opposite direction to a positive one) only changes the path, not the shape. It basically mirrors the path. Looking at the Z axis (lower left on images showing 4 views) you can see how the path is along the diagonal from lower left to upper right. If we add in some -ve spins, it can change that diagonal from lower right to upper left. The same shape is found though.

The way to change the actual path and find a different shape is to change the initial rotation offset of a spin level. All of those images have the spin level start at 0 (which direction that is depends on the spin axis: X -> Y, Y -> Z, Z -> X). That is, for an X spin, the particle is translated in the Y dimension and then rotates around the X. But we could translate it in the Z dimension or -Y or -Z or anywhere on that circle. Changing these rotation offsets gives a very different shaped path. I'll whip one up for you in a sec.

Here is a single spin set (A, X, Y, Z) with a -ve Z spin showing the mirrored path.

This shows a -Y spin:

This shows a -X: