Promote MM on CNPS

PLAN below

Intro
Nevyn and Airman joined the NCPS forum at http://naturalphilosophy.org , but no one has shared yet on the forum that I took over for us at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=110

It's called Electro-Magnetic Aethers forum and I called our part Photonic Aether and I submitted some material there that seem to describe MM's model somewhat, which I copied from this forum.

Do yous prefer a different name for the forum? Or do yous prefer better material to be posted there?

What do yous think of this plan for the NCPS project?

POTENTIAL PLAN
1. Post MM material to the CNPS forum
2. Submit MM material for the CNPS Wiki
3. Schedule a free CNPS video presentation of MM's main ideas [Saturday mornings, I think]
4. Present a paper for the CNPS yearly Conference by May 31 [for July 20 or so in Vancouver, BC, CAN]

Is anyone interested in any of that sooner or later? I don't imagine a paper could be presented at the Vancouver conference this year, unless we want to persuade Miles or one of his friends to present a paper there. Do we want to persuade Miles to do that?

I asked Bruce, their webmaster or something, if I could help try out their Deliberatorium-like structured forum and their Wiki for alternative science, and I think he is planning to have me do that. I also volunteered to invite others to help too. So, if it works out, I expect I'll announce it here, when it's ready to go.

The simulations you guys are developing will be needed asap, I presume. They should be a big help to support MM's model. I think it might be good to show why photons stack their spins. I think Miles said in one of his papers around 2011 or 2012, after I asked him why they would stack a spin around the point of collision, that it's because they can't go faster than light speed, so they have to stack. I initially thought that Michael Vacaitis's original model of gyroscopic action, that we discussed for this forum, might explain how the spins stack, but he seemed to back away from that model right away. In his initial post on the TB forum, he had said that the force of a gyroscope at the point of contact is down and it's not down from the center of gravity.

I recently saw images of Nevyn's video of stacked spins making proton and neutron shapes. Was that a simulation, or an animation? That seemed promising.

The main strength of Miles' work is its encompassing nature. It covers various sub-fields of physics and links them all together into a coherent whole. However, that is a weakness for promotion of his work. It is difficult to talk about nuclear models if the audience does not understand stacked spins and how charge works, for example. We would need to find the right path through it all in order for the audience to take it seriously.

I don't think we are ready yet. We are building things that will help, for sure, but I think we need to treat this very professionally.

My suggestion is to:

List the topics that are required to show Miles' work up to some level (probably nuclear models but that may be too far).
Order them so that they tell a coherent story.
Build some tools to help visualize the concepts.
Put it all together in some presentable form, video, paper, etc.

How much can we get through and how much time will such a presentation take to perform? How much time do these presentations have? I imagine we are talking minutes rather than hours. You could get through a fair bit in an hour, but 15 minutes wouldn't cover much at all.

I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, but I don't want to do more damage than good, either. We should take our time to create something that is worth selling. In my opinion, that rules out doing anything for this years conference and I probably wouldn't expect it to be completed until some time next year. There is a lot to go through and we only have so much free time to spend on it. Unfortunately, none of this work pays my bills!

If Miles was on board and doing the presenting, then that would change everything. We could build the models to backup what he wants to talk about while he is building the presentation. There is still a lot of time required, but I think Miles would have a better idea on how to collate his work into a presentation. Of course, he is in a much better position to answer any questions that arise too. Even if Miles doesn't want to do it, and part of me expects that he won't (but still hopes that he would), he might be able to provide the list of things to present.

Is SpinSim a simulator or an animation? I treat it as somewhere in between, but with more affiliation with a simulator. On my site, I call it a Stacked Spin Motion Simulator, not a Stacked Spin Simulator. The main difference being that a true simulator would be able to build stacked spins through collision. SpinSim just shows the motions of a particle with stacked spins so I felt the need to differentiate that. I'm not sure anyone else will get the difference just from reading the title, but it makes me feel a little bit better.

Shall we collaborate here to write up a letter to Miles? I write to him infrequently. I take it some of you guys do too. What do you guys think the letter should say? Something like:

We hope you may like to give a presentation of any aspect of your model to the CNPS conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada around July 20 in order to familiarize increasing numbers of scientifically minded people with it, so that we would have a growing number of people contributing to ironing out all of the potential kinks and making it more easily understandable to scientists and laymen alike. And then it would be more available to help advance civilization, humanity and life on Earth and beyond. Would giving such a presentation be feasible for you? Of, if you can't, would you like to help guide someone else to do that? We're willing to provide some vague assistance.

And then we could add some additional practical points for persuasion. What additional points are there?

Yes, we should build up that email and make sure we have our own ideas straightened out before going to Miles. A professional approach will hopefully attract a professional response.

My main concern, whether Miles is presenting or not, is the concepts that should be presented. We need to know that in order to know what we can build to help promote those concepts. My own work has been focused on building apps to play with the ideas. They provide flexibility so that the user can explore the concept. That doesn't always work well with a presentation approach. Jared's work is more useful for that, but I'm sure I could come up with something, given the need.

It seems very difficult to promote Miles' work without going over the photon, stacked spins and charge. That is at least a presentation right there, maybe more. We are asking the audience to forget most of what they know and start again. Not an easy task, especially for a professional who has invested a lot of time in their own work.

The more I think about it, the more I think that it is all too much to cover. Maybe it is better to present Miles' work on Relativity as that is a more self-contained area of his work. Which is why I started with that on the CNPS forum. They also seemed to be concerned with Relativity and wanting to discuss it, so it might be easier to gain some traction with that first. If they get a taste and see that Miles has some useful ideas, then they might be more willing to listen to the rest of it. We can't win the war in one battle. We need to take the long path. Make sure that each stepping stone is solid.

By the way, I'd change that last sentence. I don't want to provide vague assistance, I want to provide real assistance but am vague on how I can help. I know that is what you meant but am not convinced that is what might be heard. Maybe just change it to 'We are willing to provide any assistance we can and out team has skills in programming and 3D modeling.'