Review?

by **LongtimeAirman** Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:31 pm

.
Jared. My basic script, so far. I think it needs to be compressed and simplified as much as possible, though.
Airman. Hi Jared. A script? Do you mean code script? Or are you going to add a sound track describing the scene? How long do you need to speak? Who is your intended audience?

I routinely cite, or list all the pertinent charge field ideas before answering a question. I’m sure the viewer finds it tedious, I try to keep a positive attitude and continue. Describing things properly is essential for learning. Between you and me, I make plenty of errors.

Here’s my first chop at clearing up your Postulate paragraph, take it or leave it.

Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c.

The vimeo. The yellow particle (ball) has always had a stick through its center that is very distracting. As the yellow balls spins, its stick delivers hits to green balls 1,2 and 4. Could you replace the stick axis with pole markers? Would it be possible add a brief show collision points? Since you ask, the transparent clones are distracting, they aren’t needed.

If Nevyn thinks you may have all but one of the directions and impact points correct, you must be learning.
.

by **Jared Magneson** Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:06 am

Thanks, Nevyn. I played with these collisions a lot but thought there was something fishy about a couple of them. Both your suggestions make perfect sense, now that I'm looking at it again. I'll fix it and re-upload for further analysis.

I apologize for constantly asking you for clarification, but I feel like it's of the utmost importance to get this right.

by **Jared Magneson** Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:53 am

LongTimeAirman wrote:Here’s my first chop at clearing up your Postulate paragraph, take it or leave it.

Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c.

Perfect. Much better, to the point, and cleaner than my prose.

LongTimeAirman wrote:Airman. Hi Jared. A script? Do you mean code script? Or are you going to add a sound track describing the scene? How long do you need to speak? Who is your intended audience?

No, I mean a written on-screen explanation (somehow!) or at least in the description sections of the Vimeo. You're right, it needs to be short, clean, and very explicit. So I really need to compress and clean things up for the layfolk.

And yes, pertinent links should definitely be involved. But for an online video I think that should go into the description section?

I'm really trying to make this a nice, clean intro to the charge field. Further videos should go along the same lines.

As for axial markers, I think you're right as well about that. I need to make it obvious the difference between paths and markers and actual "matter", so there's little or no confusion. I'll work on that from an animator's perspective and see what I can come up with.

Thanks, both of you, for your input. This is kind of a group project so I really appreciate all the feedback and patience! Sometimes it feels like I'm stumbling through this but the concepts need to be explored, and need to be presented accurately. Down the road we'll be doing huge simulations with billions of these spinning particles, so if our foundations are wrong then the whole thing goes to shit. I want to avoid that. Avoiding shit is a long-term goal, here. Smile

by **LongtimeAirman** Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:39 pm

.
Jared wrote. As for axial markers, I think you're right as well about that. I need to make it obvious the difference between paths and markers and actual "matter", so there's little or no confusion. I'll work on that from an animator's perspective and see what I can come up with.

Airman. Making changes and taking criticism isn't easy. The axial sticks and transparent clones served their purpose, now they stand out like training wheels on a bicycle. They are still there if needed.

Axial markers. I don't recall discussion on this subject. My preferred autocad particle diagram is an up or down (forward direction), red or blue, matter or antimatter, hemispheres. Spin is orthogonal to the forward direction as one’s fingers curl in the right-hand rule. Looking down to Earth from the equatorial plane to the Earth we expect to see twice as many photons to anti-photons. In studying individual collisions we may or may not maintain our forward/reverse or up/down directions.

Here’s a suggested edit of you initial theory paragraph.

Theory: The photon can become any larger charged particle through spin stacking. Photons already moving and spinning at c cannot move or spin any faster; energy gained through a collision will induce an end-over-end spin outside the gyroscopic influence of the prior spin, doubling the photon’s radius and mass for each new spin. As the photon stacks spins, its overall motion becomes larger and more recursive, it has become a charged particle. Charged particles recycle the smaller photons it encounters by confining, then generally re-emitting them equatorially away from the charged particle’s top spin direction. When the photon stacks enough spins, 4 or 8 – we don’t know exactly - it becomes an electron. Four more spins and the electron can become a neutron or proton. In this way, all charged particles are built from the fundamental B-photon.
.

by **Jared Magneson** Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:35 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:When the photon stacks enough spins, 4 or 8 – we don’t know exactly - it becomes an electron.

These parts kinda mess with me. We still haven't reconciled Mathis's various maths on this one, as far as I know. Not with ourselves or with him. I'd really like to get this out of the way but it's a barrier until we do. Nevyn's the only one close, it seems like. I'd defer to him, but until we get a pretty powerful simulation up to speed (my deficit, nobody else's) to see how these things could act it's a fuzzy area.

How much recursion is necessary to trap and recycle charge photons?

I'm hitting calculation barriers here, even with the most powerful software around and tons of CPU and GPU cores to toss at the issue.

And at the end of the day, it's crap in, crap out. Simulations are only as good as their programming. It's not proof of anything, but could be supporting evidence in many ways. I'm mostly just trying to diagram these stacked spins so we can see how this recursion would actually work and look. So this entire thread is basically me struggling to get to (and past) the third stacked spin.

It's daunting. Sometimes it's too complex for my mind to deal with, especially compounded with trying to make Maya's mind deal with it too. Sometimes I just "give up" for a few days or weeks, to let myself regroup and step back. And sometimes I just need the feedback you folks give me to power me back up again, go at the problem another way.

But I feel like progress is being made, slowly but surely! I'm working on making this short video neat, clean, and very accessible to the layman. And all these critiques and analyses you guys give me is just phenomenal, very appreciated.

It'll get there. I've got some animator buddies over on CGTalk helping me out with techniques and methodologies too, so hopefully I'll have some "good shit" to share with you guys shortly.

by **Jared Magneson** Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:59 am

Here's another revised, reworked attempt at illustrating the theory. I've replaced most of the ornaments outright in favor of transparent arrows and vector-markers, and a simple thin red ring around our B-photon to show its initial rotational axis. It's the same spins we've been looking at, so the spin dynamics should be proper. I've added some impact "rings" as well, to show the collisions a little better. But these may not be terribly helpful?

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 WRlf5r1

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 WRlf5r1

https://vimeo.com/225210003

Is this less confusing, or more? Sans any dialogue, does it seem obvious that the particle is spinning up after each collision? Do the new ornaments work better or worse? The dialogue should be an accessory. Anyone watching should be able to see what's going on, even if they don't understand it outright.

by **LongtimeAirman** Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:01 pm

.
Yellow, red and green photons. I see a thin red equatorial line about the yellow photon.

Solid color spheres prevent the viewer from seeing the particle spins. Instead, you indicate particle motions with spin ribbons, spinning arrows, expanding impact circles and center markers for new end-over-end spins – all outside the colored spheres. I must admit, the motions displayed are fascinating, if not hypnotic. They actually draw attention away from the recursive motions of the particles under study.

Last time I requested brief (short duration) collision marks, I was thinking of spots drawn on the two colliding surfaces and not as an expanding circle in space. The first collision – expanding red circle – appears orthogonal to the red sphere’s forward motion along – say – the x-axis. That cannot be correct, the red particle is traveling in the x direction just below the x axis. The line of collision between the two spheres must have a z component which doesn’t appear to be present in the expanding collision circle. All the collision circles seem to be in single x, y, or z directions, none are normal to the collisions they are intended to highlight. I don't think they make things clearer.

I strongly believe surface markers will enable a much better interpretation of the action. Please differentiate the photon surfaces. With visible photon motions, external markers will be less essential. We should at least be able to distinguish the pole locations, with dots, circles or crosses. Last time I suggested red or blue hemispheres - a minimum of surface differentiation. For example, your horizontally spin oriented yellow particle would blue hemisphere up, red hemisphere down. I would further suggest dividing each hemisphere into quarters, blue and white quadrants above, red and white below. Or, similarly, consider marking those three great circles (equator and two orthogonal circles intersecting at both poles) in clear lines on the sphere’s surface.
.

by **Nevyn** Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:16 pm

I agree that the ribbons are cool to watch, but distracting. I watched the entire video and it was only once I came back to this forum that I remembered that there were collisions.

A simple approach I have used (SpinSim) for markers is to create 2 spheres per BPhoton. One is the solid color you want it to be and the other is only rendered in wireframe. You may need to make the wireframe sphere slightly larger than the solid sphere. Otherwise parts of the wireframe disappear.

My other approach, which I think looks really cool, is what I have done in my particle simulator in OpenGL. I believe I have put videos of it here but not sure where (I was demonstrating Octree Indexes). It is a sphere implemented as an Icosahedron. I then create colored sections (red, green and blue) by setting the color per vertex and this creates a strip per color with the same color on opposite sides. That requires code to set up for me, not sure if it would be feasible in Maya. I'm sure it can be done but not sure how hard it would be. Icosahedrons only contain 20 vertices and this is not enough for a smooth sphere so I have to create new vertices between the existing ones until I reach a point where it is smooth. The colors are smoothly interpolated between old and new vertices.

An easier approach is to just apply a texture to the sphere. The texture needs some sort of pattern or irregularity. There are plenty of rock textures around the need that work well. Have a look at my Expansion apps for an example of this.

by **Jared Magneson** Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:11 pm

These are all great ideas, thanks again to you both. I think I'll go with wireframes and per-vertex colors overlaid onto the solid, smooth sphere as it will be really easy to implement in Maya. Wireframe is the default state, and even the smooth-shaded spheres are just a SubD surface at rendertime. I literally just click "Wireframe on Shaded" and that's done. Plus since they pinch at the poles already (like a wrapped globe), the poles should be readily apparent.

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 NA7hmRY

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 NA7hmRY

How do the motions look, otherwise? I tried hard to correct those impacts, but perhaps the expanding rings are too distracting. I could easily pop a red dot or locator at those collisions though so I'm gonna try that instead.

Maybe I let the Z1 spin play through a few times then fade in those arrows later? I mean, if they help at all in describing the motions?

by **Nevyn** Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:59 am

It is hard to tell how the actual collisions are without seeing the circles. The Y spin collision (green) looks strange to me but I can't figure out exactly what it is. At first I thought it was hitting at the wrong time. Then I thought it was colliding at the right time but not spinning the correct way from that collision. Then I thought it might be the X spin affecting the new Y spin that causes it to move in a weird direction. I don't know.

Could you make the arrows longer so that they create the circle of the former videos? This allows the arrow to spin around and show direction while still having the complete circle to see how it relates to the other spin levels.

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:01 pm

Nevyn wrote:Could you make the arrows longer so that they create the circle of the former videos?

Definitely. I'll play with that.

Meanwhile, here's the raw, ornament-free video with the wireframe overlays. Same motions, just no external stuff:

https://vimeo.com/225368694

by **LongtimeAirman** Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:30 pm

.
Jared, I’ve viewed your stripped down version many times. I can’t say the motions are correct or not. I think the wire frame helps, it certainly conveys the recursive motion all by itself.

The next thing I would request is to include a track of the particle’s path, this would allow a direct comparison with Nevyn’s Spin Simulator.
.

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:53 pm

Yes, a motion trail path of some sort is definitely in order.

But I haven't changed my motions themselves since Nevyn and Miles both concurred on whichever revision it was, awhile back. I've only been applying the collision objects (which aren't actually colliding at all, just key-framed to appear that way) and the various trails and such atop that grouped hierarchy that "worked".

This isn't to say the motions are perfect, but they should be close down to a few decimal places. And I'm always open to correction. I do lose a bit of precision translating to 30fps in the math, since there are no "half-frames" to work with. So the math is a little sloppier than it could be, but hopefully we're making some progress.

Again, I'm not trying to replace any of Nevyn's tools, but make something a layperson might be able to understand quickly. Miles asked me to work on this further awhile back, so I think he wants to link it in on some of his papers - but it's gotta be RIGHT. And legible! Which is what I struggle with.

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:54 am

Well, after a bit of downtime focusing on Mathis's genealogies and political papers, I'm back at my project with renewed vigor. I've been watching a lot of other, similar animations (not regarding Mathisian physics) to see how others successfully demonstrate and illustrate such things, as a matter of technical direction and visual art. So I'll be working on and refining my animations, with clearer labels and better visualizations, as well as using a buddy's animation script to tighten my math down well below the level of framerate (30fps, here) to reduce error margins if not eliminate them.

Meanwhile, I took LTA's suggestions and have been updating the script. Some of this will be overlayed onto the animation, some will just be in the description on Vimeo or whatever. Not sure about that yet, but here's my (hopefully) more refined script.

Please tear it apart if you see any inconsistencies, folks?

"Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c. As the photon collides with another particle, it transmits its velocity through linear motion as well as its spin motion. Consider that light could have no energy without having mass: 0*c² would still be zero, so the photon must have some (tiny) mass. Our eyes see photon impacts, not electrons or protons. The photoelectric effect alone proves this, but also phototropism and photosynthesis in plants.

Hypothesis: The photon as the fundamental quanta becomes all larger particles through stacked spins. As particular collisions occur, a photon can be induced into an end-over spin outside the gyroscopic influence of the prior spin. This end-over spin effectively doubles the photon's radius each time a new spin is induced. As the photon stacks enough spins, its complex motion becomes more and more recursive, confining other smaller less-spun photons it encounters and redirecting them, recycling the ambient field of other photons. It is emitting charge. If the photon stacks enough spins, gaining radius each time, it becomes what we know as an electron. Several more spins and it becomes a neutron or proton. In this way, all particles are built fundamentally from the photon.

Demonstration: The yellow sphere represents our photon. We will give it a radius of 1 for the sake of easy, relative math. We will also give it an axial spin to visualize how it moves. We have a spinning photon, which has polarity. It is spinning one way and not the other (clockwise or counter, the direction doesn't matter here) for example, and its tangential (spin) velocity will be greater at its equator than at its poles. It may collide with many other photons or larger particles on its journey through space, and most of those collisions will simply refract or redirect its path, but some collisions will affect its motion in more complex ways. Since this is an axial spin only, we will call it the A1 spin.

Here we have an incoming photon (marked as red) striking our original at a certain angle, causing the photon to "tumble" in the X-axis. Since it's already going c linearly and spinning at c, the collision energy is most easily expressed or transferred at the opposite pole - flipping the photon end-over-end. It can't add any more energy in those other directions, so it tumbles. This is the first stacked spin - we will call it the X1 spin.

Since it is now traveling a longer distance, it takes a bit longer to move through the larger spin. It now has a radius of 2, relative to our initial state. This doubling of the radius also doubles its mass - it's taking up twice the volume as before in its motion, over a given timespan. Its energy has increased, and it is now more likely to collide with other photons simply because its path takes up a larger volume.

Let's add another spin. An incoming photon (green) strikes our X1 spin photon along that X axis, so our photon can't exchange this velocity except to tumble on its Y axis, just outside the influence of our previous X1 spin. This is the second stacked spin, or Y1 spin.

This doubles the radius again, giving us a relative radius of 4. A photon with two stacked spins is 4 times as large as a photon with only its axial spin.

Let's add yet another spin. The incoming (blue) photon strikes our Y1 spin photon, tumbling it into the Z1 spin. Each new stacked spin must be a tumble, outside the gyroscopic influence of our previous spin, orthogonal to the main vector: the right-hand rule.

Now we have doubled our radius yet again. A Z1-spin photon is 8x the size of a lone, axial-spinning photon. This is the level of the infrared photon, which experiment has shown is the most common state. It's a stable average photon, and most of the ambient charge field is in the infrared spectrum. Heat is generally a measure of infrared photon density in a given volume; though other photon spin-configurations will contribute to heat, the average spin-state is around the Z1 level.

Theory: Further stacked spins double the radius each time, and as the photon reaches the electron's size (literally becoming an electron), its motion and inertia becomes recursive enough to "scoop" up other incoming photons as they bounce through its path. This is "charge recycling". The electron becomes a tiny fan or engine, powered by the charge field, as it takes in and re-emits photons. This is the mechanical definition of charge in action. The electron is a charged particle.

Stack a few more spins via further collisions, and we have the proton. If the last spins are reversed, it becomes the neutron. In this way, the photon is the fundamental quantum particle that we know of; all larger particles are built in this fashion, from stacking additional spins via certain specific collisions."

by **LongtimeAirman** Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:16 pm

.
Jared, I’ll be happy to give you a critical review. First, I’ll rant a bit. I’ve had my head bit off here more than once.

With respect to the charged particle, in both Spin Sim and Quantum Particle Spin we can only see the motion of the particle’s B-photon. All new end-over-end spins are sequential additions to the B-photon’s complex motion. A large charged particle appears as a recursive series of orthogonal gyrations of the B-photon. The particle’s mass apparently equals the B-photon mass plus each component end-over-end motion. The B-photon is shown following the combined motions of all the sub-spins. There is no particle “surface”, the gyrating B-photon will define the particle’s manifold surface over time.

I believe Miles says collisions affect just the particles’ outer spin, although there are some secondary spin effects. This implies that photons colliding with the particle wouldn’t be expected to penetrate the particle’s topmost spin. In both our models the particles’ B-photons are totally exposed. There’s no surface, at any given moment there is only the B-photon’s position and motion within the particle’s volume.

The particle is recycling charge, we haven’t gotten that far yet. How can the charged particle’s essential B-photon maintain its integrity - locked in its fixed complex motion despite collisions with similar motions of the many photon’s recycling within the particle’s volume? Is the surface of the particle defined by recycling photons? If that were the case, how could collision with a recycling surface transfer mc^2 energy? How are collisions defined within the particle?

Our models simulate spin stacking using a B-photon with fixed motions. Of course a B-photon cannot remember motions, it only has forward and tangential velocities of c. All light-speed end-over-end boosts are mass creation events, which double the particle’s radius. We show spin creation, but we do not show a “real” particle with an increased radius and surface. How about, whenever an end-over-end spin is created, real tangible mass is also created. I don’t know, perhaps the previous topspin becomes tangible mass. Prior internal surfaces should still exist.

Please don’t take any of the above as personal criticism. You’ve spoken with Miles and I’m sure that adds to this discussion. You may recall I suggested spin stacking could be like shell growth. There’s got to be either mass creation or some other mechanism we’re missing. Maybe we can come up with something before Nevyn finds out.
.

by **Nevyn** Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:39 pm

Too late. I've already proposed that all mass is just velocity and that is why a new spin level increases mass. It isn't the size so much as the motion. Everything is motion (and something to move). Of course, size does play a part once it reaches a certain radius, just through the number of collisions, but I think I would prefer to call that an expression of mass, rather than mass itself.

However, you have some time to figure out something else. I have been designing a hi-fi amplifier system (actually, it has surpassed that already) and have started the procurement process (PCB's are being built as we speak) and am about to start the building phase (this is an expensive and time consuming hobby). So I imagine it will still be some time before I feel the desire to step back into physics again.

Good luck. I look forward to the challenge.

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:16 pm

I completely agree with Nevyn's postulate about mass. Nevyn, your paper on Spin Velocity is of course part of the foundation for my presentation, mine which is probably only even remotely important to the three of us here (hah!) but I just feel obligated to keep at it. Sometimes I doubt if I can accomplish what I want to do with this but then I watch other CGI physics vids, or Maya tutorials on animation or particle effects, and I think I can pull this off given enough rigor and effort. So I plod on... Thanks for joining me in the tedium, even from afar, my friends.

And I can't remember if it was the same paper or threads around here (which I think I'm going to archive entirely, just in case something goes wrong with the site) in which Nevyn discussed these fundamentals of mass, velocity, and acceleration further. Any acceleration must be implied, as they are just changes in velocity propelled by some collision event or other. It struck me very well and soundly. I'm operating under the ideas of those papers or essays or posts, which is another thing Nevyn brings to the table on top of all the visual, wonderful stuff. Thank you, even if we don't see you much for awhile, you're very appreciated.

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:50 pm

LongTimeAirman wrote: First, I’ll rant a bit. I’ve had my head bit off here more than once.

Rant onward and freely. I hope I've not ever bitten anyone's head off here, and that I'm not the cause of your statement. I found your rant to be quite "on point", that is to say it makes sense to me and I'll try to give some decent answers.

LTA: How can the charged particle’s essential B-photon maintain its integrity - locked in its fixed complex motion despite collisions with similar motions of the many photon’s recycling within the particle’s volume?

JMM: I think that the core B-photon maintains its integrity chiefly because of its velocity and vector. Most collisions (by far) won't hit the B-photon hard enough or directly enough to overcome its intertia or momentum. To add a stacked spin, for example, requires a very specific contact point and vector, along with enough energy to cause a new flip (I assume). An A1-spin generic bottom-of-the-barrel photon with only the single axial spin may have enough energy to add a spin to a Z1 guy, but only if the hit is dead-center and at the right time from the right place. There are more than one right time/right place where a new stack may occur, but most incoming collisions will be glancing blows that affect the collider much more than our focus B-photon. If so, this would also be true of charge-recycling larger particles such as the electron or proton. Our spun-up B-photon acts as a mechanical bully, barreling around with little mind to the charge corral it forms. Protons certainly seem more resillient than electrons, for example.

LTA: Is the surface of the particle defined by recycling photons? If that were the case, how could collision with a recycling surface transfer mc^2 energy? How are collisions defined within the particle?

JMM: It seems to me that "the particle" (proton, for example) is simply the cage-path traced by the complex, ridiculous motion of its core B-photon. It's still moving at c, tangentially, but no longer at c linearly. So we have this little bugger flipping and flopping around with a lot of mass compared to the charge photons it's corralling, but it still leaks a great many of course. It can't be everywhere at once. But it CAN be bouncing charge photons all over the place, and in a path that effectively extends this corral, this path-cage. They'll be spraying all over the place as it churns through the ambient field, so its path is enhanced just as a matter of extension.

A neutron however takes a different path of travel, having those opposing final spin vectors. So perhaps the neutron bounces its charge around another time or two more before it can escape, thus giving the appearance of charge-blocking (relative to the proton). That's why it contributes less charge, because in the ambient field it simply takes the same amount of photons longer to emerge from the neutron than the proton. I may just be parroting or paraphrasing Mathis at this point, but I'm visualizing it much better after trying to simulate it for so long. Hope it's not too tedious.

That also explains how the proton is porous to charge, and the neutron and electron as well. Any incoming ambient or "binding charge" as in a nucleus doesn't see the proton as a surface or manifold "shell" so much as a weird and wacky maze, with multiple ways in and out. With a proton, it will be very rare that the core B-photon and its bouncy entourage will be at the poles, and very common that it will be nearer the equator. But our incoming ambient photon doesn't care what it hits, it just hits stuff and most likely hits the proton's charge emission rather than the spun-up B-photon itself. The mc² energy transfer would be photon-to-photon generally, I imagine.

It's hard to even contemplate but all this is happening so fast, and so many ambient photons pouring through, that perhaps in a proton MOST ambient charge guys only get one bounce and are tossed out. Maybe some churn around recursively, but that could be the chief difference between the proton and neutron. What's the ratio of recursivity? Cool word, I got no answer though.

(*an aside)I haven't come anyhwere near bringing the actual speed of light into my simulations (though I imagine Nevyn's have no problem with that math) because Maya as an animation tool is a spatial environment far, far too small to explore light speed for 90 seconds. Its internal grid is in centimeters, for example, with a UI limit of accuracy only down to the thousandths. (*end blather)

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:59 pm

As a bonus just for showing up guys, here's my latest piece of artwork. Enjoy or despise, but I figured I'd share what I've been up to in a similar time-consuming hobby to Nevyn's amplifier.

"With the Choedan Kal"

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 With_the_choedan_kal___saidin_by_jaredthedragon-dblohb3

(click to see full)

by **Nevyn** Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:58 am

I am really stepping away from this idea of charged particles corralling photons inside of themselves. It is a fine idea and I commend Miles for coming up with it, especially given that he was working this all out in his head. I had to write software for myself so that I could see the motions and after years of fine-tuning and working with it, in various forms, I can no longer agree with this kind of charge recycling. I don't find it necessary and I don't find it feasible anymore.

I explain the charge difference between Proton and Neutron by the narrowing of the central hole that forms in larger particles. Effectively, it has more resistance just like a smaller diameter pipe has more resistance than a larger one. It is still the direction of spin levels that determines that, but there is no need for photons to be inside of the particle at any time. Photons just move too fast. There is no way for the Proton/Neutron BPhoton to reach the other side of its path before the photon gets there. The BPhoton has a linear velocity that matches the P/N BPhoton tangential velocity, so they are moving at the same speed, but the P/N BPhoton has to move around a curve to get there. The photon just goes straight to it (the potential 2nd collision point). You have to suggest a slowing of the photon to give the P/N BPhoton time to get there, but there is no evidence of photons slowing down at all.

One problem with my approach is that it does not explain why a Neutron isn't charged like a Proton. That is, it should still have a disc-like charge emission field. It does explain the through-charge being lower, but not the emission field. My current best guess is that the Neutron actually does have an emission field, but it is much less dense than a Proton, or even an Electron. Not sure how it would do that though.

Ok, here's an idea I just came up with. What if I have it backwards? What if the Proton is the particle with the smaller through-charge hole and the Neutron has the larger one? Then the Neutron allows more charge to just flow on through while the Proton collides with it and this is (part of) what creates the emission field. The Neutron would still have some amount of emission field, but not as much as a Proton. The Electron is already smaller, so its central hole is also smaller, allowing it to collide with most charge that flows into this area. Therefore, the Proton and Electron will have more emission charge than the Neutron.

Here's another idea that keeps the Proton with the larger hole. Since the Neutron now has a smaller through-charge hole, it collides with more charge in these areas (north and south poles) and because of this, its emission field is more spherical, where-as the Proton/Electron allow the charge to get deeper inside of itself before collision and this sends it, predominantly, to the equator.

Great! Now I have two mutually exclusive ideas and no way to figure out which is right or even if they are both wrong.

Why do I do this to myself?

by **Nevyn** Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:18 am

That's really good, Jared. I'm currently reading (actually listening to) the first book in the Spellmonger series by Terry Mancour. That image actually relates to that story a bit. Enough for it to be the first thing I thought when I saw your image. It also relates to the Wheel of Time series a bit too, if anyone has read that. They un-earth huge statues with magical totems towards the end of the series, so it actually fits a bit better than the Spellmonger book.

Since we're sharing artwork, here's one of the circuits I've been working on. It's not as pretty, but it is (hopefully) functional!

Top layer:

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 Amp-sw10

Bottom layer:

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 Amp-sw11

It is a circuit that connects 2 power amplifiers in 3 different ways: Stereo, Bi-amped and Bridged.

by **Jared Magneson** Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:09 am

@Nevyn: those circuits are awesome to me, as I don't know too much about them but have fiddled a little and of course my motherboards are covered in them, with only suggestions in my head of how they work! Pretty cool stuff, man.

Yep, your second guess was correct. The Choedan Kal are the two huge statues in The Wheel of Time, one female and one male, and they are critical to the story towards the end of book 9, "Winter's Heart". I've done a few pieces for the author, including the cover of his 2009 calendar, which was published just after he died. Also did a book-signing with the finishing author, Brandon Sanderson, and it was really cool to meet him and spend an evening with him, even though I hadn't read his books yet at the time. The final book in the series, "A Memory of Light", is among the greatest books I've ever read. It's also relative to our cause, here, in many ways. But that's just sentiment on my part. Smile

by **LongtimeAirman** Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:12 pm

.
Nevyn, You spoiled the surprise. High fives to your hi-fi project – good luck. I wasn’t trying to drag you back into the mud. Sorry I must quote you for the discussion, please understand I’m not inviting your reply – is that politely awkward enough? Please don’t answer.

Jared, Choedan Kal is quite nice. Forces concentration, imagination and curiosity. I can almost look into his eyes. Wonderful. And I see new posts since then. I can't keep up with you two.

Nevyn wrote. I've already proposed that all mass is just velocity and that is why a new spin level increases mass. It isn't the size so much as the motion. Everything is motion (and something to move).

Jared wrote. I completely agree with Nevyn's postulate about mass.

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

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

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

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

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

Rant out, commencing review.

Please consider the following comments.

1. “Postulate: The photon…”. You don’t mention the B-photon, always just photon. I believe we refer to the photon that can stack spins as the B-photon.
2. “linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c”. Delete ‘c’. Redundant, used twice … “both c”.
3. Change velocity to momentum.
4. A single photon can only move and spin at c, or create/lose an end-over-end spin.
5. Suggest changing “for the sake of easy, relative math”, to “and keep things simple”.
6. Delete “for example”. Even better, rewrite sentence. The photon must spin up or down.
7. “most easily expressed or transferred at the opposite pole”. Sorry if I misunderstand your description, I would argue that the collision point should be the center of the new end-over-end spin, and not the point opposite it.
8. What is “it”? A particle? How does a particle travel through a longer distance? Maybe “a point on the equator”? Please rewrite.
9. End-over-end, giant swings, I’d hadn’t considered “tumble” before.
10. “the right-hand rule”, applies only for spin up, it’s the left hand rule for spin down.
11. “the average spin-state is around the Z1 level”. Interesting, what do you mean by average – halfway to an electron?
12. Are you saying that the electron is the smallest particle that recycles photons?
13. All spin states are charged particles.
14. You might add. “All higher states of matter, such as the atom, molecule, planet, sun, and galaxy all appear to recycle charge in this fashion, taking photons in mainly at the poles, and emitting them mainly from the equator.

Text reviewed, including some changes and the points identified above.
"Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) (2) and spin tangential velocities, both c. As the photon collides with another particle, it transmits its velocity momentum (3) through linear motion as well as its spin motion. Consider that light could have no energy without having mass: 0*c² would still be zero, so the photon must have some (tiny) mass. Our eyes see photon impacts, not electrons or protons. The photoelectric effect alone proves this, but also phototropism and photosynthesis in plants.

Hypothesis: The photon as the fundamental quanta becomes all larger particles through stacked spins. As particular collisions occur, a photon can be induced into an end-over spin outside the gyroscopic influence of the prior spin. This end-over spin effectively doubles the photon's radius each time a new spin is induced. As the photon stacks enough spins, its complex motion becomes more and more recursive, confining other smaller less-spun photons it encounters and redirecting them, recycling the ambient field of other photons. (4) It is emitting charge. If the photon stacks enough spins, gaining radius each time, it becomes what we know as an electron. Several more spins and it becomes a neutron or proton. In this way, all particles are built fundamentally from the photon. (5)

Demonstration: The yellow sphere represents our photon. We will give it a radius of 1 for the sake of easy, relative math to keep things simple. (5) We will also give it an axial spin to visualize how it moves. We have a spinning photon, which has polarity. It is spinning one way and not the other (clockwise or counter, the direction doesn't matter here) for example (6), and its tangential (spin) velocity will be greater at its equator than at its poles. It may collide with many other photons or larger particles on its journey through space, and most of those collisions will simply refract or redirect its path, but some collisions will affect its motion in more complex ways. Since this is an axial spin only, we will call it the A1 spin.

Here we have an incoming photon (marked as red) striking our original at a certain angle, causing the photon to "tumble" in the X-axis. Since it's already going c linearly and spinning at c, the collision energy is most easily expressed or transferred at the opposite pole - flipping the photon end-over-end. (7) It can't add any more energy in those other directions, so it tumbles. This is the first stacked spin - we will call it the X1 spin.

Since it ( is now traveling a longer distance, it takes a bit longer to move through the larger spin. It now has a radius of 2, relative to our initial state. This doubling of the radius also doubles its mass - it's taking up twice the volume as before in its motion, over a given timespan. Its energy has increased, and it is now more likely to collide with other photons simply because its path takes up a larger volume.

Let's add another spin. An incoming photon (green) strikes our X1 spin photon along that X axis, so our photon can't exchange this velocity except to tumble on its Y axis, just outside the influence of our previous X1 spin. This is the second stacked spin, or Y1 spin.

This doubles the radius again, giving us a relative radius of 4. A photon with two stacked spins is 4 times as large as a photon with only its axial spin.

Let's add yet another spin. The incoming (blue) photon strikes our Y1 spin photon, tumbling it into the Z1 spin. Each new stacked spin must be a tumble (9), outside the gyroscopic influence of our previous spin, orthogonal to the main vector: the right-hand rule. (10)

Now we have doubled our radius yet again. A Z1-spin photon is 8x the size of a lone, axial-spinning photon. This is the level of the infrared photon, which experiment has shown is the most common state. It's a stable average photon, and most of the ambient charge field is in the infrared spectrum. Heat is generally a measure of infrared photon density in a given volume; though other photon spin-configurations will contribute to heat, the average spin-state is around the Z1 level. (11)

Theory: Further stacked spins double the radius each time, and as the photon reaches the electron's size (literally becoming an electron), its motion and inertia becomes recursive enough to "scoop" up other incoming photons as they bounce through its path (12) . This is "charge recycling". The electron becomes a tiny fan or engine, powered by the charge field, as it takes in and re-emits photons. This is the mechanical definition of charge in action. The electron is a charged particle (13).

Stack a few more spins via further collisions, and we have the proton. If the last spins are reversed, it becomes the neutron. In this way, the photon is the fundamental quantum particle that we know of; all larger particles are built in this fashion, from stacking additional spins via certain specific collisions" (14).

.

by **Jared Magneson** Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:18 am

I'm not necessarily married to the charge-engine corralling concept, but if we were to run some math on that it should be easy to determine what if any validity it might have. In an averaged ambient field of a proposed density, how many photons would be in or near the center of the proton's spin-path over a given dt? Are we talking three or four, or are we talking a million? If the proton is recycling or (basically) refracting 19x its own mass per second in charge photons, it seems possible that some or many of those photons would collide with each other on their way out? I don't know how to go about calculating that propensity, but if enough photons are in the vicinity then the proton's path seems like it would only increase the probability of them colliding. I'll try to diagram what I mean, and push my computers to do the real math if possible.

But I agree, there's no magical slowing of the photon so it reaches the other side just as the proton passes again. I also have no problem with the neutron's emission being more or less spherical, and it would actually help the Alpha models I'm working with if it were. The poles would still be polarized slightly due to the through-charge, but spherical emissions would also tend to flatten out the center of the alpha's general emission, and thus give it a little more cohesion or shape as an atomic structure. Suppress the protons' emission above and below in the central structure, but not above and below the Helium atom itself. Just visualizing here.

by **Jared Magneson** Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:32 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:56 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Jared Magneson** Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:51 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:19 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.
.

by **Jared Magneson** Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:45 pm

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

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 CY347Jk

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 CY347Jk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by LloydK Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:03 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Jared Magneson** Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:37 pm

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:19 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:01 pm

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

by **Jared Magneson** Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:25 pm

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

Study from seconds 5+ of my most recent animation.

https://vimeo.com/225368694

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

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:44 pm

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

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

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

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

by **Jared Magneson** Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:57 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Jared Magneson** Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:02 am

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:39 pm

.
Jared, Thanks for the spelling correction and videos.

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

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

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 1/7

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

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

by **Jared Magneson** Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:14 am

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

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

by LloydK Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:35 pm

Jared:

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

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

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

by **Nevyn** Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:22 pm

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:11 pm

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

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

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

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

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

by **Nevyn** Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:19 am

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

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

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

by LloydK Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:21 pm

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

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

Does precession require two objects (gyroscope and fulcrum)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:02 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Nevyn** Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:25 am

Airman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Nevyn** Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:47 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I assume the latter, or stacked spins are dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by LloydK Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:34 pm

How much of this is believable?
My guess is they don't take Miles' info into account.
gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 Figure-11-07-04a

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 Figure-11-07-04a

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

by Ciaolo Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:21 am

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

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

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

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

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

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:41 pm

.
Hi Ciaolo, Good to hear from you.

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

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

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 Photon10

gravity - Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical) - Page 2 Photon10

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

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

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

by Sponsored content