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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The B-photon is not alone, it’s pushing one, two, or three other recycling photons through the X-spin toroidal volume. Looking at the X spin now, the B-photon and additional X-spin photons present a much more substantial spin wall. Those photons extend the B-photon’s motion. As the Y-spin goes through its motions, the B-photon and one, two or three other X-ring spin transients together cause a larger Y-spin charge current. The charge field thus extends the particle’s cycling motions beyond that of the B-photon alone. The B-photon’s motion is still essential – it needs to keep spinning. If it stopped, I suppose the particle would run down(?).
 
LongTimeAirman wrote: The complex B-photon motion idea stopped making sense. How can a B-photon remember a ridiculous series of motions constantly threading its way through all the particle’s spins? If it is a single photon it cannot, it can only move forward and spin at c or develop or lose an end-over-end spin. You can point to the B-photon and say, indeed, it traces great spirographs. The B-photon however, cannot move between independent spins, else they wouldn’t be independent.

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

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


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

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

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

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

LongTimeAirman 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.

.
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.
.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

.
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.
.

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

LongTimeAirman 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.

.
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.
.

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.

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



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

.
Jared, 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.
.

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

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

Jared:

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?

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.

.
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.
.

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.

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?

.
“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.
.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

.
Hi Ciaolo, Good to hear from you.

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

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



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

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

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

Yep, those are the methods you want to use but I was getting at what objects you want to use them on and how they relate to each other. I may have jumped the gun a bit, I thought you were implementing stacked spins but it looks like you are starting from a collision model first. Carry on and if my advice makes sense at some point, then you are probably ready to use it.

Airman wrote:Larger charged particles cannot be formed without photons from the charge field.

I would be a bit more precise and say that larger particles, even electrons and protons, can be formed just by collision but we would not call them electrons or protons unless they were radiating charge, which then requires a charge field. The collisions to add spins do not require a charge field. They could be individual collisions over a short or long time span. This might be quibbling, since there is a charge field, but it isn't strictly needed to stack spins but is absolutely needed for charge emission.

.
Lloyd wrote. How much of this is believable?

Airman. It's real alright, it’s just non-intuitive. I just found a good youtube gyroscope video. Lecture 24_ Rolling Motion - Gyroscopes - VERY NON-INTUITIVE.mp4



Spoiler alert. It starts slow, solid cylinders always roll faster than hollow ones, regardless of the radius.

The professor, Manuel Tamez(?), has a fine lecture series. Precession is due to an external torque applied to a spinning body. For the first time I easily followed how gravity causes a torque which results in the spin axis precession toward the direction of the torque. Increasing the weight increases the torque and increases the rate of precession.  If we apply the torque, instead of relying on gravity, we find that stopping the torque stops the precession. The professor has good demonstrations.

I’m not at all certain precession is applicable to photon collisions – very short duration torques?  I've got to wonder. Would the X1 be initiated at right angle to the angular moment?

Absolutely the charge field is involved. Along the same line as why airplanes can fly, as they move faster they encounter more of the charge field, enough to counteract gravity. As a gyroscope is spinning, it can intercept more of the charge field, while gravity remains the same; the result is spinning gyroscopes in motion do weigh less. I’m far from understanding how else the charge field is involved – Is it possible the photon/anti-photon ratio result in the right hand rule of precession? Would the precession rate vary from say Earth to Venus?
.

I don't think precession requires a charge field because precession is needed before a charge field has been created. What I think you might be missing is that photon collisions happen in a vacuum but all of these videos are within a dense charge field, and an atmosphere, which provide drag to the precession after the torque is removed. Photons don't have any such thing to slow them down. They are also colliding at tremendous speeds, so there is a lot more energy involved, so short duration torques have more of an effect.

Also, a spinning sphere (gyroscope) does not intercept any more of the charge field than if it was not spinning. It doesn't take up any more room when it is spinning. Other shapes can do that, but not a sphere.

A-Spin

Airman: 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.

Airman, thanks for the gyroscope stuff. I'm practically certain that there can only be one A-spin. The next spin after the Z-spin is the X2-spin. Si? Miles knew this initially, but then he seems to have forgotten. He had said in an early paper that there can only be one axial spin and I told him I think there can be any number of spins. Like I can throw a football spinning on its long axis (a "spiral"), or I can spin it on both its long axis and its short axis, causing it to turn end over end. He then pointed out that the spin about the short axis is only an end over end turning of the long axis; the short axis is not a physical axis of the football, just an axis of the spin.

Spin-stacking Collisions & Spectra

Nevyn: The collisions to add spins do not require a charge field. They could be individual collisions over a short or long time span. This might be quibbling, since there is a charge field, but it isn't strictly needed to stack spins but is absolutely needed for charge emission.

I think about the only place there can be such spin-stacking collisions is within a very dense liquid or gas/plasma, like a star, where there's lots of charge flying around at very close quarters. Right? When a scientist takes a photo of a spectrum of the Sun, how many photons does it take to make the spectrum? If emission or absorption lines show up, do they only appear on high shutter-speed photos? Or are they visible to the eye, with or without a magnifying glass?

I just checked Miles' papers and see he discussed spectra at http://milesmathis.com/stark.pdf . He said this there.
Charge is real photons in the field. These photons produce little streams through and around the nucleus, which I call charge channeling. In dozens of previous papers I have shown you how to map this field through a large number of elements and molecules, drawing the diagrams that explain how and why the nucleus channels as it does. In most cases, charge stays in the infrared, since what we call heat is actually the charge field. But elements (and free electrons) can also spin up these photons into the visible and beyond, giving us visible and invisible emission lines. Since each element channels in a different way, each element will also produce signature emission lines. ... Pole electrons are positioned in an external charge eddy, where they are vulnerable to ambient charge. ... What happens in the Start Effect is that an electrical field coming from the side pushes the electron over a tiny amount, causing a wobble in that circle [around the pole]. ... My pole electron is only one or two electrons distant from the nucleus, and it is caught in a powerful and real stream of photons. I have already done the math showing the distance of the valence electron.... In my theory, the electron is in a vortex, and that vortex is a real field of real particles. ... Once you have this nutation in the polar vortex, caused by the electron, you will naturally have a shift in photons being emitted through that vortex. It is like shifting the center of focus of a light. That is one cause of the shift, but what gives us the split? Well, this is a little more complex.... Yes, if the photons we are monitoring are above the infrared, then the gas has to be spinning them up into the visible or ultraviolet; but otherwise we don't have to explain the creation of photons. All we have to explain is the spectrum or series at a given energy.

... I only have one electron in Hydrogen to work with. Yes, but Hydrogen isn't the only thing present in these experiments. We also have the field, which is also real. The field also contains photons and electrons. It is these electrons in the field we will use to explain the series, not the electron in Hydrogen. ... I am letting electrons recycle photons. ... And the photons it is recycling are dependent on its own energy. This energy of the electron is determined by both its linear speed and its spin speed. A greater spin speed will let it “open up at the pole” to allow more energetic photons to recycle through it. ... Why would there be levels in the field around a Hydrogen atom, if there aren't any electron orbitals? There are levels simply due to feedback or resonance between Hydrogen atoms and the ambient field. ... The Hydrogen series fall off in a distinct pattern ... because, again, we are seeing the fall-off with distance from the gas or other substance (or from the point of heating). ... As the emission travels from substance to eye or machine, we have a fall-off in temperature. That fall-off in temperature is the same as a drop in energy in the ambient field, which is the same as a less dense E/M field. In other words, the pattern of free electrons in the ambient field widens. ... The lines are representing not a fall-off in distance from the nucleus, but a fall-off in distance from the gas as a whole.

Does anyone want to make an illustration or simulation of that so I can understand it?

Gyro in Space
PS, I forgot to mention that it seems that gyros must behave differently in space than on Earth, at least regarding precession. If you put the axis of a gyro on a fulcrum in space, I assume that the fulcrum would have no effect and would not really act as a fulcrum without gravity having its normal effect as on Earth or other body. But experiments should probably be carried out on the ISS with gyros and fulcrums, to make sure. It could be that contact with mass may have some effect, like stacked spins seem to have.

Lloyd wrote:I think about the only place there can be such spin-stacking collisions is within a very dense liquid or gas/plasma, like a star, where there's lots of charge flying around at very close quarters. Right?

A dense liquid or gas is more likely to cause spin-ups/downs, as in it will have a higher rate of spin-conversion, simply because there is more to collide with and it is harder to avoid those collisions. However, there is nothing to say that spin-conversion has to happen on a short time scale. It makes it much easier for us extremely short-lived entities to measure it, but it is not a requirement. It is also very difficult for us to follow a single photon around to observe its life and if we could, then we would have to control that photon to keep it in our own vicinity which would corrupt the observations.

At the end of the day, a spin-conversion only requires the right collision. To reach an electron, say, from a BPhoton it might take about 30 collisions (assuming they all spin-up and no down spins and I don't know the exact number but it would be somewhere between 20 and 40 I believe). Those collisions could be separated by a million years each or it could be nano-seconds. Time doesn't really matter, just what the particle is.

Lloyd wrote:When a scientist takes a photo of a spectrum of the Sun, how many photons does it take to make the spectrum?

A spectrum is a range of possible values. Those values may be quantised or not. Our measuring devices have their own resolution which is the result of their accuracy and precision. Accuracy is the ability to hit a specific target. Precision is the ability to measure that target. These concepts are often inter-changed but they are quite different. You can be accurate but not precise and you can be precise but not accurate. Ideally, we try to build machines that are both accurate and precise, but it is not always possible.

Maybe an example might help here. Suppose you are an archer shooting arrows at a target. The target is separated into circles that are 2cm wide (inner to outer radius). You want to hit the bulls-eye, obviously. Accuracy is your ability to put an arrow where you want it to go, i.e. the bulls-eye. Precision is the width of your arrow heads. If the arrow head is 10cm wide, then it is much easier to hit the bulls-eye because even when your accuracy is off, there is a wide area covered by the arrow head so it is still likely to cover the bulls-eye. However, if you were trying to measure the width of each circle with your arrows, then a large arrow head is not very useful because it has that wide area so you can't get good readings. You want a small arrow head, say 1mm, so that you can differentiate between different arrow hits.

So, how many photons does it take to cover the spectrum? It depends on the precision of the device used to measure them. There is some absolute number of photons, since they are quantised, that make up the absolute spectrum, but I don't know what it is. It is something that I have wanted to work on. To make a close study of the E/M spectrum and how that relates to stacked spins, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. You could look at the current E/M spectrum and note the number of individual wavelengths, that will be close to your answer.

Lloyd wrote:If emission or absorption lines show up, do they only appear on high shutter-speed photos? Or are they visible to the eye, with or without a magnifying glass?

Emission and absorption lines can not be seen with the naked eye, even with a magnifying glass (assuming you mean measuring photons directly with these devices). They require great precision because they are extremely tiny. Shutter speed doesn't really come into it. Shutter speed is the time it takes to create a measurement and that depends on how many photons are present. If there are a lot, then you can use a high shutter speed but if there are not very many of them, then you need a long shutter speed. Just like normal photography. There may be some limits, as the longer the shutter speed the greater the chance of other photons (from other sources) being captured that could smear out those lines. Conversely, you can't make it too short either or you will not measure anything.

We can do the same thing in audio but instead of seeing the absorption lines, we hear them as higher or lower volume. This is what an equalizer does. Imagine you had a graphic equalizer with lots and lots of individual frequency bands. So many bands that you could isolate individual frequencies (which would be about 20000 of them to have 1Hz precision). To do this we use what is called a Notch Filter. A filter so precise that it only limits a single frequency (+/- a few Hz since the surrounding frequencies are also affected but not by as much, it rolls off, not a sharp drop like a cliff, but close compared to other filter topologies).

Let's say we left all filters at the zero point (so no filtering) but we move the 500Hz filter down to its lowest setting (so filtering as much as possible). Now, any signal we send through that device will have all frequencies at the same volume (assuming they are all the same volume from the source), except the 500Hz signals, which will be removed, or so low as to be considered removed. That creates an absorption band at 500Hz. If we put all filters at their lowest setting but left the 500Hz filter at the zero point, then we have created an emission line because the only frequency that gets through is 500Hz.

So atoms are like little filters. The way charge flows through them causes certain frequencies to be emitted and others to be removed (or lowered considerably, beneath the noise floor). You can change the filter frequencies by using electric fields on the atoms which, Miles has stated, moves the electrons over a bit and changes the flow of charge through the nucleus.

This could also be related to why the mainstream think that electrons emit photons when they change energy levels. It might actually be the electrons shifting around inside the nucleus which causes a quick flash of a different frequency. Pure conjecture on my behalf, but it seems reasonable.

The Stark Effect paper is a really good one. A bit hard to penetrate, but really important and worth studying closely. I have thought about animating it, because it is so important and it seems relatively easy enough to do. Still haven't put any time into it though. So many ideas and so little time to work with them. Perhaps Jared might like to tackle this one. I am happy to help when needed.

Lloyd wrote:PS, I forgot to mention that it seems that gyros must behave differently in space than on Earth, at least regarding precession. If you put the axis of a gyro on a fulcrum in space, I assume that the fulcrum would have no effect and would not really act as a fulcrum without gravity having its normal effect as on Earth or other body. But experiments should probably be carried out on the ISS with gyros and fulcrums, to make sure. It could be that contact with mass may have some effect, like stacked spins seem to have.

The fulcrum is just a large mass with respect to the gyro. It is something for the precession to work against. On the Earth, the fulcrum is just an extension of the Earth itself. So, yes, in space things will be different because we don't have such a large mass to work with. However, they are attached to the ship, so they do have mass to work as a fulcrum. Gravity Probe B was based on gyroscopes so I'm pretty sure they have a decent idea on how they operate in space.

I'm not sure how gravity comes into it. Gravity often comes up when talking about gyro's because they defy it. That doesn't mean that they require it to precess. I'm not saying one way or the other, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence that gravity is required.

Thanks for chiming in some more here, guys. I was kinda lost in our train of thought (not derailed, just absorbing and thinking about all these various things.

So I'll give this Stark Effect a shot with my newer, particle-only based model (no animation tricks, just particles, spin, and collisions) and see what I can come up with. I'll have to re-read the paper of course but that's always a pleasure.

I'll make a new thread about that and give it a "spin" tonight.

Nevyn wrote:This could also be related to why the mainstream think that electrons emit photons when they change energy levels. It might actually be the electrons shifting around inside the nucleus which causes a quick flash of a different frequency. Pure conjecture on my behalf, but it seems reasonable.

I think this is true, and we see this in "beta decay" and other processes as well. I often wondered how they would measure that single photon coming out, that is to say how would they know it was just one, if any others were moving in a direction away from their detectors? It seems obvious they couldn't be that precise. They aren't even precise enough to admit that photons exist in the first place as real particles, so it's always been highly suspect to me since reading Mathis's work.

It seems reasonable to me, that a wobbly electron would cause a different charge emission from an atom than a more stable electron. I'll try to incorporate that into my animation.

.
I don't hear any agreement. Ok, please consider this.

All things are made of real photons with mass, radius and spin. The only interaction is through photon collisions. There’s something else, I don’t recall reading it explicitly, although it must be true, photons are the source of gravity. That is, the photon radius is expanding at the rate of gravity. Photons do not have an emission field to prevent contact. If two photons came together without sufficient force to separate, they could remain in sustained contact. Their spins may or may not interfere at photon spin equators, but I can see no reason why photons couldn’t remain in polar contact indefinitely. Any old incoming e=mc^2 photon can easily breakup the photon pair, or replace one of the two partners. No reason photons couldn’t become members of the B-photon x,y,z spin loops or just recycle through the charged particle. Photon gravity helps in the creation of larger charged particles. Since the tangential velocity of the surface of the larger charged particle at its equator is light speed, photon gravity helps establish an equilibrium photon count for the larger charged particle.  
.

No, I don't think that is possible. The problem is the photon spins will interact. No matter which way they spin, they can collide with 2c worth of energy. At first, it seems like they could be spinning the same way and not collide. Without gravity, that would be true. However, gravity makes them appear to move together so their VOIs will intersect which means their actual BPhotons can collide. If their spin cycles are coherent, then they can survive for some time like this (which is still a small amount of time to us) but eventually they will collide. If they are spinning opposite to each other then they will collide much sooner.

This is probably the reason light beams lose focus and density as they travel.

On a re-read I noticed that you said polar contact and this is true to a certain extent. I was assuming side-by-side but front-to-back is a bit easier. However, now you are creating a line of photons, not a sphere. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Why do we want them in a line? Why do we want to group them at all?

How about simulating two A-spin photons gyroscoping around each other? And can we calculate how long they could remain joined together? Can the vectors be diagrammed easily, if at all?

LloydK wrote:How about simulating two A-spin photons gyroscoping around each other? And can we calculate how long they could remain joined together? Can the vectors be diagrammed easily, if at all?

Do you mean two A-spin photons orbiting each other, or revolving around each other? What would cause such a motion?

It seems like two A-spin photons could in theory be moving right next to each other in the same direction for a small amount of time, before gravity warps the vector and they either collide or miss each other. But I can't think of any reason they would be orbiting each other, since they're only moving linearly and spinning on the one, lone axis. There's no "wobble" to an A1 photon.

Jared and Nevyn,

Have you guys made any progress with the Stark Effect paper? Just curious.

No progress here, alas. I'm finding it ultimately difficult to script or program anything we want to do with my tools, despite their internal power. Maya can do anything, I just lack the ability to tell it how.

I've been re-re-reading the Stark Effect paper and a few other related ones as a result of your question though, and it's nice. Missed some things the first few times on those. Also very interesting is his most recent paper on the Electron, which might be pretty helpful.

At this point it feels like all I can do is diagram things. I was hoping to physically simulate these concepts, but I just can't wrap my head around how to do it without an even heftier array of computers. I'm running 34 cores in my attempts and still falling up short, and I think it's because I'm trying to pinpoint and simulate every photon, instead of just describe the charge field. So I'm going to start over and see if I can get anywhere, by just describing the field and not worrying about the particles (photons) themselves for now.

Working up an electricity vs. magnetism video-diagram next, to see if I can get anywhere. It feels promising.

None here, either. I'd forgotten about it, to be honest. I haven't done any work in physics for months (I need a break every now and again). Now that Miles is writing about physics again, it will probably get me thinking along those lines at some point.

Jared, I see your starting to see my side of things. It is a real pain, isn't it? You want to develop at the photon level but the numbers required are staggering. But if you abstract it a bit, you lose something in the translation. Of course, you have to abstract it to make progress and then you might be able to see how to unwind that abstraction at a later point. Still, that's half the fun of this work.

I was re-reading a paper about this stacked spins matter. This one: http://milesmathis.com/super.html .

I wonder if in the various simulators you are creating you are giving true freedom to the photon. I mean, the travel direction, the axis spin, the first stacked spin etc. should all be independent.

If we have the axis spin about x, the first stacked spin could be about any line touching the “original” B-photon, not necessarily about z or y.

I’d like to know if you already thought of this and, if not, I’d like to know if I’m just misunderstanding Mathis paper...

Yes, I have thought about this and, to a certain extent, have incorporated those types of ideas. The ones I haven't are because they introduce great complexity. For example, given a stacked X spin, it is possible to stack a Y or Z spin on top of that, but I don't program that in because it just creates confusion at this stage. In a fully implemented simulator I would do that, because I would have the math to back it up (still working on that). In fact, I wouldn't actually need to do it, it would just happen. I would have to take great pains to limit it to the X, Y, Z order (which I obviously wouldn't do).

However, things are not quite as free as they seem. For instance, given a BPhoton with no spin, the first thing it has to do is gain an axial spin. This can be about any axis. Once it has that axial spin though, the next spins are not free to go about any axis they want to. The next spin must be on an orthogonal axis to the axial spin axis, so we have already lost one axis of freedom. Every stacked spin level is the same. They only have a choice of 2 axes because they have to be orthogonal to the existing spin axis they are stacking on top of.

While I haven't figured it all out yet, it also seems to me that there is a limit to the direction of the linear velocity. I think it must be pointing in the same direction as the top level spin axis. This makes the top level spin rotate around the linear velocity. I can't give you any good reasons for that, but my intuition is pointing me in that direction. Any other combination of linear velocity and top level spin just doesn't look right (I'm sure that's a scientific argument ).

In essence, they are not all free in the true sense of the word. Properties of the photon effect each other and can place restrictions on each other and on new spin levels.

It is still good to bring these things up every now and again though. Sometimes I forget about some things while working hard on others so a reminder is not a bad thing at all. It also shows your own level of understanding growing. It takes a fair bit of time thinking about stacked spins before you see how the different parts effect each other or even to just realise that they may or may not.

Nevyn wrote:They only have a choice of 2 axes because they have to be orthogonal to the existing spin axis they are stacking on top of.

Why? And what happens with collisions that are not precisely on those axis?

I'm talking about this freedom because, starting from the paper I linked 2 posts ago, we only have a "spin influence", and a stacked spin beyond that. The main reason the stacked spin was proposed by Mathis is because it's the most reasonable way to have more than one independent spins.

Moreover, when we construct a stacked spin we have a sphere, not a toroid shape, and that is because (imo) any line tangent to the original particle can be the spin axis of this new particle, regardless of the "inner" spins properties. This sphere is the limit of the stacked spin and this is used to define where the subsequent stacked spin will be (on any tangent on this sphere).

The toroid shapes should make you think something is wrong.

EDIT: I think a basic spin/stack-1 simulation could be created together with collisions to see if this can go any further.

.
Hi Ciaolo, I'm having a hard time visualizing your description, can you make us an image, maybe do a screen capture or a paint diagram in order to show the tangent lines? You've given me reason to make Chris Wheeler's wave.mov a little more convenient. The shift after the two cycles is due to the fact that the end-over-end spinning sphere is slowly approaching (on average!) the viewer, the view is being reset to the original location.



The torus we've discussed is described by the e-o-e sphere motion within the spherical volume shown, that spherical volume doesn't exist.
.

Ciaolo wrote:

Nevyn wrote:They only have a choice of 2 axes because they have to be orthogonal to the existing spin axis they are stacking on top of.

Why? And what happens with collisions that are not precisely on those axis?

Because the new stacked spin must be orthogonal to the existing spin. This means that they are not independent. They have a relationship. They also have another relationship with respect to their rotation speeds. You can read more about that in my paper at https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/papers/spin-velocity.html.

A collision that is off-axis will not have the required energy to create a new stacked spin level. I imagine that most collisions fall into this category which is why spin-ups and spin-downs are rare except in certain, controlled, circumstances, such as inside of a nucleus where the charge is dense.

Ciaolo wrote:I'm talking about this freedom because, starting from the paper I linked 2 posts ago, we only have a "spin influence", and a stacked spin beyond that. The main reason the stacked spin was proposed by Mathis is because it's the most reasonable way to have more than one independent spins.

Miles has stated from the start that each spin level is orthogonal to its inner spin. They are not independent but they are still different spins.

Ciaolo wrote:Moreover, when we construct a stacked spin we have a sphere, not a toroid shape, and that is because (imo) any line tangent to the original particle can be the spin axis of this new particle, regardless of the "inner" spins properties. This sphere is the limit of the stacked spin and this is used to define where the subsequent stacked spin will be (on any tangent on this sphere).

Not any line and it isn't a tangent. It can be any line pointing out from the equator of the existing spin. The equator of a spin level is every line orthogonal to that level's spin axis.

Ciaolo wrote:The toroid shapes should make you think something is wrong.

Stacked spins produce toroidal shapes, in a general sense, because of the doubling radius. The spinning particle, whether that be an axial spinning BPhoton or any number of spin levels, takes up R space where R is its radius. The next spin level takes that and rotates it around an orthogonal axis which doubles the radius but only in 2 dimensions, not 3. We now have a general shape that is twice as wide as it is high and is circular about the high dimension. Sounds like a toroidal shape to me.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Hi Ciaolo, I'm having a hard time visualizing your description, can you make us an image, maybe do a screen capture or a paint diagram in order to show the tangent lines? You've given me reason to make Chris Wheeler's wave.mov a little more convenient. The shift after the two cycles is due to the fact that the end-over-end spinning sphere is slowly approaching (on average!) the viewer, the view is being reset to the original location.



The torus we've discussed is described by the e-o-e sphere motion within the spherical volume shown, that spherical volume doesn't exist.
.

Yes, the volume doesn’t exist, it’s the limit of the spin. It’s the body that will spin if there is a spin-up.

Nevyn, I’ll carefully read your paper.

I’ll also draw something to explain my point, when I have time.

Hi all. I’m doing some research into Mathis papers. In this one http://milesmathis.com/strong.html I found this phrase. What does he mean by “interfering gyroscopically”?

Mathis wrote:Any simple analysis of spins stacked in this way must show that they are orthogonal to eachother. If the first spin is axial, then the second spin must be end-over-end about an x-axis tangent to the sphere. This is the only way to keep the second spin from interfering with the first gyroscopically (or the first with the second). The third spin must likewise be outside the influence of the inner two, which puts the y-axis tangent to the great sphere of x-spin. It is not only tangent, but orthogonal. The three axes must create the 6 right-angle directions. This explains the relationship of the magnetic field to the electrical field. It also explains the relationship of both fields to the motion of the particle itself, since the flux of both fields will be determined directly by the speed of the particle and its radius, as you see.

.
Ciaolo wrote. What does he (Miles) mean by “interfering gyroscopically”?
Airman. Spins must be added orthogonally, at a tangent to the previous spin's great sphere (taking into account your previous comment). My interpretation is in terms of spin boundaries. The particle cannot have internal or external spins colliding into each other. All the particle spins must stack together neatly in a radius doubling progression.

Miles uses “gyroscopically” in one other paper Hidden Variables *, where he is also discussing stacked spins. It definitely adds to the discussion.

Miles wrote:I have shown http://milesmathis.com/super.html that any spherical particle can have four distinct spins: about a radius, about an x-axis, about a y-axis, and about a z-axis. You will say, “Isn't that one too many? Aren't the radial and x spins the same?” No, they aren't. We have to give the particle a linear motion as well, and when we do that, we see clearly the difference between radial and x spin. A particle spinning about its own axis is not moving in x,y,z yet, so we have four possible spins. Yes, the radial and the z spin will be similar, but they will not be equivalent, since the z-spin will not be through the axis of the particle. It will be parallel, but not equivalent. And the spins must be of different sizes as well, so as not to interfere with one another gyroscopically. If the radial spin is of size 1, then x will be 2, y will be 4, and z will be 8. This is simply to get the outer spin beyond the influence of the inner spins.

* From http://milesmathis.com/index.html
260. Hidden Variables. http://milesmathis.com/hidden.html Explaining the fifth quantum field. 2p.
.

I read all these papers and I think it’s not necessary to draw diagrams since I understand that the 3 spins must be orthogonal, mainly becaus observations say that, but also because all the math, which is correct, is based on this.

Anyway, I still don’t understand why a particle with x + y spins will get a new spin about z and not x, since x is orthogonal to the last spin as well as z.

Ciaolo wrote. I read all these papers and I think it’s not necessary to draw diagrams since I understand that the 3 spins must be orthogonal, mainly because observations say that, but also because all the math, which is correct, is based on this.

Anyway, I still don’t understand why a particle with x + y spins will get a new spin about z and not x, since x is orthogonal to the last spin as well as z.

Airman. Miles can describe spin stacking without diagrams, us - not so well. Drawings are necessary to answer your question.



Comparing an AXYX to an AXYZ. In the first spin set, I don't believe Nevyn’s spin simulator allows the freedom to make the second X spin at twice the radius of the Y; instead, I un-enabled the simulation's Z and enabled the second X spin; the second X spin is four times the Y radius. Nevertheless, I believe it’s still fair to say that the AXYX spin set results in an open ring structure when compared to a more voluminous AXYZ. AXYX is lacking emissions in its forward direction, it is more exposed, leaving wider pole openings with no emission protection. AXYX might be described as degenerate, appearing like a large AYX.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

Welcome David Behlman. I didn't have anything positive to say about Wolfram Math World and offered Martin Gardner instead. I pretty much agree with your comments. We're all trying to understand Miles' ideas here, maybe get a jump on the rest of the world. Feel free to argue.
.

Ciaolo wrote:I read all these papers and I think it’s not necessary to draw diagrams since I understand that the 3 spins must be orthogonal, mainly becaus observations say that, but also because all the math, which is correct, is based on this.

Anyway, I still don’t understand why a particle with x + y spins will get a new spin about z and not x, since x is orthogonal to the last spin as well as z.

It isn't about observations or math, it is about avoiding precession. Or maybe it is about using precession to the extreme that actually stacks on the new spin level. Precession is the force that arises against a force applied to a spinning entity. By doubling the radius, this is avoided and a new spin is allowed to be added. That is Miles' main argument for the doubling radius but in my studies to understand this stuff and why spins might be stacked I thought that maybe the precession is actually what causes the new spin level. Or maybe it is the force left over after the precession force has been overcome by the collision force that creates the new spin level. Either way, precession is the key.

You are right that the X axis is also orthogonal to the existing Y spin axis and so it looks like it is feasible to stack a new spin on that axis. This may even happen in reality. However, it creates an unbalanced particle which I think would lose that unstable spin fairly quickly. We don't need any special rules for excluding these types of spins, just a mechanism to explain why they don't survive long.