Photon Sinewave Travel

.
Each non-axial spin could occur In any allowable orthogonal order, as Nevyn currently assumes must be happening. Legal new orthogonal spin means that the underlying motion is still present. I would change Nevyn's preferred list (which contains no A-spins) by adding A-spins after every X, Y or Z as in -  X1, AX1, Y1, AY1, Z1, AZ1, X2, AX2, … .
.

I don't like every second spin being axial. There must be some argument against it. We discussed this topic a year or two ago on another thread and in that Airman mentioned balance. I hadn't really thought about balance with respect to stacked spins before that, but I am going to use it here to keep the axial spins above a full set of X, Y and Z spins. There isn't really any balance here, since each spin level is twice the radius of the previous, but at least there is motion in all 3 dimensions when a full set is available.

You've stated X1, AX1, etc, does that mean that it is spinning axially about the X axis? That doesn't create a sphere, if that is what you are looking for. The axial spin axis would need to be about the Y or Z axis (to keep it simple) in order to create a sphere (which it still doesn't do because all of the motion is integrated).

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Simplest Case. A-spin creation involves a two-step process. First, a non-axial (X, Y, or Z) spin is created. Second, an axial spin is added to the first non-axial spin.

Please, evaluate only the simplest case. I honestly don’t see how the definitions of axial or end-over-end spins are violated when they are applied as two consecutive actions. Does this simplest case break the rules of stacked-spins or not? I can only guess, the fulcrum is light speed and the lever is the moving Bphoton? The Bphoton always seems to be spinning about points outside itself, that’s a good description of our current spin sims. Does that particular objection apply to the X-spin to A-spin transform alone? Is the simplest case consistent with Miles’ descriptions?

Miles has always assumed A, X, Y, Z , A, X, Y, Z, ... so I think it is inconsistent with what he has stated previously.

The fulcrum is the spin axis or the point about which it is spinning. The lever is the other particle in the collision that caused the new spin level. The BPhoton, or whatever particle is being spun, is the weight, to complete the analogy. The problem is that you have to get your lever into the middle of the existing spin in order to create an axial spin on top of that. The rules of gyroscopes tells us that the existing motion will revolt against such a force. That is why the previous spin was an end-over-end spin.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I can’t imagine a charge field without A-spins - or it would take some effort.

Why? What is it that these axial spins provide that you can't do without? I just don't see the need for them at all, beyond the first which is absolutely necessary.

I made a quick video, just a variant of my last Stacked Spin vid, to show how the X1 spin can form. I think this might help us here.



https://vimeo.com/214120396

It's really short and the viewport crapped out on me during the playblast, but maybe watch it a few times? Sorry I didn't catch the glitch before uploading it, I got excited.

As Nevyn said, and Mathis has tried to explain (but I doubt he's gone this far into it, to be honest), the collision causes the photons to of course transfer energy and repel each other. In some cases, the motion and spin transfer causes a torque in one or both photons. The vector is what matters. The easiest way for this torque to be applied (the fulcrum) is at a point on its surface orthogonal to its existing, current spins. A flipping point, if you will.

To apply this to, say, an A1, X1, A2 phenomenon in theory, what point would be the axial flipping pivot? Which world axis are we pivoting on? There's only one point that COULD be an axial pivot, and that would be in the center of the X1 VOI, or at the innermost surface of our particle. That point isn't orthogonal to our existing motions, though. A collision using that point as a fulcrum doesn't have anywhere to leverage a new spin, you see.

Consider the motion while it's in X1:


At what points on the surface and what vectors would a collision cause it to spin about its center in another direction? Any other direction would cancel out our A1 and X1 spins. Or, at most, shift the X1 spin to be around another world-space axis. It can't spin in place in more than one direction (our initial Axial A1), so how could it spin in place here as an X1_subspin_Z1 or _subspin_Y1?



I've drawn the center point as a blue (blob) dot. The only available motions orthogonal to X1 are Y1 or Z1. Proposing an axial spin on an already-stacked spin means that we're changing the axis of THAT stack, not adding energy or radius or mass. So it would go from an A1 -> X1 to an A1 -> Y1, which is still only one stacked spin from the axial B-photon. No radius, mass, or energy has been gained.

I don't think that's possible, but if it were it seems like that's what we would have. Not a three-spin, but still a two.

I found this quote in Miles How do Photons Travel paper. I've been looking through various papers for my Interactive Papers project, which hasn't gone as cleanly as I thought it would but that's another story, and thought this applied to our discussion here.

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

He states that the a2 spin is twice the radius of the z1 level and the same for every spin level. Clearly a contradiction. Although it is interesting that before that, he has stated that it could have another axial or x-spin on top of the infrared's z-spin. So it seems Miles is hedging his bets. He has used higher axial spins but also seems to suggest that they are not required. I don't think we are going to get much help from his papers on this one. We have gone beyond them and maybe even beyond Miles himself. I'm not convinced that he has studied stacked spin at this level of detail.

Stand proud, gentlemen, we may be the forefront of quantum research!

.
Thanks for explaining these complex Bphoton motions, pointing out details that I’ve usually missed. I think I follow well enough to appreciate most of the difficulties. You two may be the only people who really know this stuff, so I gotta keep a close eye on both of ya's.

We’re here to learn. A discussion of sequencing does us all some good. An annual review of spin-stacking sounds good, It'd be a lot harder for me to survive more frequent lessons.

Higher level A-spins, Ok, once again, I'm convinced, axial spins on end-over-end spins just ain't possible.

Pivot centers outside the Bphoton bothers me greatly. At first I thought large numbers of Bphotons could amass in clusters, locked together by those external pivots, but now I think they must violate physics.  

What is it about A-spins? The Sun is spherical, the Earth is spherical. There’s reason to believe protons and electrons are also spherical. The product of an end-over-end spin is not spherical, it is toroidal. I’m not aware of any toroidal models.

I suppose most of my difficulties come from trying to imagine seeing a charged particle. I suppose if we could actually see a proton we would still be unable to see the Bphoton it was made from. The Bphoton would be far too small, moving at light speed and obscured by recycling photons.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
What is it about A-spins? The Sun is spherical, the Earth is spherical. There’s reason to believe protons and electrons are also spherical. The product of an end-over-end spin is not spherical, it is toroidal. I’m not aware of any toroidal models.

I suppose most of my difficulties come from trying to imagine seeing a charged particle. I suppose if we could actually see a proton we would still be unable to see the Bphoton it was made from. The Bphoton would be far too small, moving at light speed and obscured by recycling photons.
.

Fair enough. I can see why it would be hard to let go of the sphere. It took my a long time to appreciate the difference in perspective between experimenting and building a model, and I mean a physics model, not a 3D model or anything like that. In experiments and what what we learn from them, you are working from above and looking inwards, in a manner of speaking. Building a model is the opposite, you are inside and looking outwards. Experiments can not see anywhere near the level that we are describing and trying to understand. At least, not in the detail that we are looking at.

To build a model is to start from scratch and define your entities and what can happen to those entities. You start with the smallest of things and work up. However, experiments and our search for knowledge in general, start with big things and use those to probe the small things and then try to infer information from that. That inference is the point where things get fuzzy but they can also be fuzzy if your tools are not accurate and/or precise enough and certainly if you don't actually understand how your tools operate.

The sphere is used for simplicity in the math more than any great knowledge that electrons and protons are actually spheres. They are fairly spherical but then we have to ask what is it that makes them spherical and realise that a large part of that is their charge fields. Those charge fields are another, actually physical, layer of fuzziness that gets in the way of us seeing the stacked spins directly. Photons are easier in this regard but they move so fast and are so small that they provide their own problems.

So I have come to the position that things appear spherical from a distance but may be different close up, and I am trying to see what that close up picture looks like. I am glad you guys are here too, questioning me and each other, pushing us all deeper into this quagmire of ideas. Hopefully, just like Andy Dufresne (Shawshank Redemption), we can crawl through a river of shit and come out clean on the other side. If you haven't seen that movie then do it now. My absolute, without question, favorite movie. A must see if ever there was one. In fact, I might just put it on now. See you in a few hours.

What a movie! Brilliant writing by Stephen King and an awesome adaptation by Frank Darabont. If that movie can't get an emotional response out of you, I don't know what will.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Pivot centers outside the Bphoton bothers me greatly. At first I thought large numbers of Bphotons could amass in clusters, locked together by those external pivots, but now I think they must violate physics.

You know, they bug me too. I'm going to try to diagram a few more stacked spins via collisions in the way I did the last one and see what it looks like. Tracking these motions is fundamental in exploding or expanding the theory.

Is it more action-at-a-distance? Is the stacking a result of gyroscopic motion, in the sense that our B-photon finds that locus the easiest to travel around? Upon a new collision, is the B-photon being tossed in another direction which is immediately influenced by its previous stacked spins, and thus that new direction causes the next spin stack?

I'm operating under the assumption that the B-photon can only collide with another B-photon. Not assumption, a postulate in our case. VoI spheres and traced paths cannot collide. Only the physical matter can, and it's always exactly the same size. Stacking spins changes energy (motion transfer) and radius of the mass, the ponderable, potential collision volume, but it cannot change the size of the B-photon itself, as I understand it.

Shawshank is pretty damn good, Nevyn. I'm not up for a cry right now, but I'm glad you mentioned it.

.
Jared wrote. I'm operating under the assumption that the B-photon can only collide with another B-photon. Not assumption, a postulate in our case. VoI spheres and traced paths cannot collide. Only the physical matter can, and it's always exactly the same size. Stacking spins changes energy (motion transfer) and radius of the mass, the ponderable, potential collision volume, but it cannot change the size of the B-photon itself, as I understand it.

Airman. I agree. No matter what the level of spin, the Bphoton, (the marker generator in Photon Spin 0.5), is the only true physical object; including the fact that only the Bphoton can collide. That’s what Photon Spin 0.5 shows.



The original Bphoton is moving like clockwork through the various spin levels that make up the charged particle. The only larger structure present appears after long time intervals, a manifold surface volume in which the Bphoton motion may be observed.

As Miles has said, “The photon is real, and it has a radius”. Does that statement apply to the spin sim? The sim seems to say “Only the Bphoton is real and it has a constant radius”. As additional spins are added or subtracted, the sim shows the same constant radius Bphoton moving through larger or smaller volumes.

My main objection to the Spin Sim depiction is that there is absolutely no Bphoton protection. We understand that spins are added or subtracted as energy exchanges from collisions; spins are supposed to be added or removed from the top of the stack. I don’t see how most any random Bphoton/photon collisions don’t destroy the entire charged particle.  

As Nevyn reminded us, there’s another missing fuzzy physical reality, the particle’s charge field.
 
The following inside-out physical model is offered for your consideration and discussion.

https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/images/upload_library/23/picado/seashells/introdeng.html

Seashells: the plainness and beauty of their mathematical description
1. How Seashells Grow

You have certainly noticed that the shell of an immature mollusk often resembles fully grown shells of the same species but in miniature. Each one is an exact model, to scale, of the other. Seashells, with their auto-similar shape, may be represented by a three-dimensional surface, generated by a simple equation, with some free parameters. Amazingly, in spite of the simplicity of that equation, it is possible to generate a great variety of seashell types. Which ones? All of them! (with a very few exceptions: some live and fossil species of Vermicularia and fossil ammonites of the class of Didymoceras.) This shows how many of the forms that appear in nature are simple consequences of the application of three-dimensional geometry to the basic rules of growth.
The mollusk does not enlarge its shell in a uniform way: it only adds material in one of the edges of the shell (the open or "growth" ending) and makes it in such a way that the new shell is always an exact model, to scale, of the smaller shell…

…
The surface of a shell is a three-dimensional surface that may be regarded as the result of a deplacement of a curve C (the generating curve, usually an ellipse) along an helico-spiral H (the structural curve); the width of the curve C increases as far as it moves along H:

Airman. There's much more information included.

It seems to me we should allow the Bphoton ”to grow” in some similar manner along a curve defined by stacking end-over-end spins. The increased Bphoton radius with increased spins emits a stronger emission field that could then be likened to the increasing volume of the growing seashell, (or charged particle). Such a physical structure would protect it's interior, with the top spin surface the most exposed.    
.
PS. The Shawshank Redemption was great - I just don't enjoy prison movies. I prefer it's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The increased Bphoton radius with increased spins emits a stronger emission field that could then be likened to the increasing volume of the growing seashell, (or charged particle). Such a physical structure would protect it's interior, with the top spin surface the most exposed.

It sounds like you're implying that photons below the electron level are also emitting photon charge, even if it's just straight A1-spin B-photons? Are you proposing that all spin states have some emission, potentially? Say, an A1-X1-Y1-Z1 photon might have some recycling, even if it's a tiny fraction of the electron's or proton's?

Asking for clarification, not to sound incredulous. I don't think it's an unfair concept. I might be able to party with that.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
As Miles has said, “The photon is real, and it has a radius”. Does that statement apply to the spin sim? The sim seems to say “Only the Bphoton is real and it has a constant radius”. As additional spins are added or subtracted, the sim shows the same constant radius Bphoton moving through larger or smaller volumes.

My main objection to the Spin Sim depiction is that there is absolutely no Bphoton protection. We understand that spins are added or subtracted as energy exchanges from collisions; spins are supposed to be added or removed from the top of the stack. I don’t see how most any random Bphoton/photon collisions don’t destroy the entire charged particle.

Yes, that statement definitely applies to spin sim, but you need to be aware of what the radius is. SpinSim only shows you the BPhoton's radius directly. Photon radii are shown, indirectly, by the VOI's and also by the recorded path.

BPhoton protection comes in the form of velocity. Many of them, in fact. Each spin level has its own velocity and that velocity protects all velocities underneath it. Could a collision actually affect an inner spin instead of the top level spin? Maybe, but to do so it has to come in from a direction that could also create a new spin level. So I think it would create a new spin level instead of altering that inner spin level. If we assume that it could touch, say the Y spin given a top level Z spin, then I think both the Y and Z spins would collapse. That is because the Z spin no longer has that Y spin to spin itself.

The way I see it is that each spin level kind of smears out the level below it by spinning it around in a circle. It averages the mass over that circle. In the case of the first X spin, this is the actual BPhoton but higher levels are a bit more fuzzy and that may be why spin levels get weaker as they get larger. At some point, they are too weak to add a new spin level to. This smearing of mass is why each spin level acts like a full particle itself.

To propose photon emission I think you need a much smaller charge field than we find ourselves in. The average photon is IR which means that any charged particle needs to be large enough to allow many of that sized particle to collide with itself but not effect the spin on that charged particle. You need quite a size differential between a charged particle and the charge of that particle, otherwise the charge would destroy the charged particle.

I may be open to the idea that large photons can emit charge when in a very sparse environment, like between galaxies, maybe even just between solar systems. As soon as you have some large central entity though, like a sun, then you are going to get a larger charge density and most likely a larger charge photon.

Nevyn, am I correct in thinking that at all spins, the B-photon is still going light speed? Tangentially, as well as linearly?

I think that would give a VoI shell quite a bit of... ponderability, in the field. We are showing these slow enough to see what's happening for critique purposes, but in real life these spins (and the smearing trail effect) are so much faster, we would likely never even observe them if we could? The photon at any level would appear to have its top level spin's radius?

That is to say, some incoming photons will easily dodge our B-photon if passing through the VoI shell. Maybe most will dodge it. But there are so many photons in the charge field, it is unlikely that all of the incoming photons would miss it over any given dt?

I think this is part of what we've been saying about mass. The propensity to cause inertia in a collision.

Yes, that is correct, up to a point. That is exactly how I have modeled them but I think there may be some slight difference such that the addition of spin velocity and linear velocity peak at c. It could just be that we can't measure that closely yet, and so we assume that all of that velocity belongs to the linear part of it. Or it could be that the spins are so small, especially at the size of a photon, that we don't see the spin velocity in our devices. You have to remember that they don't get the speed of light by timing one photon over some set distance. They measure lots of photons, over some set distance, so they are going to average out those minor spin differences.

I was trying to get at something like the 'ponder-ability' of each spin level by smearing out the mass or rather, giving it a 'mass over volume' type of thing. That is, the mass is spread out over that volume making it appear like a solid particle and so it has something to spin in an end-over-end fashion. This may also mean that the mass gained by each spin level decreases as the radius increases because it has more volume to spread it over.

However, when we deal with collisions with the charge field, then we lose all of that speed because the photon is also traveling at c so the relative speed is quite low. It is a tricky beast to handle, that's for sure.

With respect to inertia, yes, this is why I have been saying that the spin velocity is the mass. I can't even decide if the actual BPhoton has any intrinsic mass or not. On the one hand, I think it needs it but on the other, I feel it would be so much better if mass if purely velocity. If you bring expansion into it, then you have a reason for the intrinsic mass that is also a velocity and everything comes together nicely.

Re-reading his paper on Frequency/Wavelength being reversed, we find Mathis has tried to touch on this topic considerably well for someone who hasn't done any other modeling.

"It matters where in its spin cycle the photon is, because the photon is composed of stacked spins. By knowing where in its spin cycle the photon is, we can tell where the body of the photon is inside the spins. Consult Chris Wheeler's animation again, and you can see that the body of the photon is never at the center of the spins. This explains why being at 2 in the spin cycle is not the same as being at 3. The stacked spins give the photon a varying momentum. In other words, if the photon body is forward of center in collision, the photon will act very slightly differently than if the photon body is behind center."
(emphasis mine)

http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf

So he knows that the B-photon's VoI isn't the cause of collisions, which is nice to know. I feel sometimes like we're a bit beyond his theory here and he has no input on the topic at all, even though I've presented almost everything here (that I've written) in one way or another. Not that it matters. We'll do the hard work anyway.

Yes, he has thought about spins and used their idiosyncrasies well. I don't mean to imply that he hasn't, but I don't think he has the kind of view that we have through our apps and models. No-one can build stacked spins in their head and have any confidence in that view. Even just up to the first Y spin is difficult. Add on a Z spin and there is no hope of integrating all of those motions correctly.

The stinker is that I know my software doesn't have anything gyroscopically accurate built in, under the hood, so I have to "fake it" with my models. So I know there's always a huge margin for error - me.

And it hurts a little. Hah haa! But I can take this time to learn more, develop a way to get your math into Maya, and refine my presentations and video editing techniques.

I do still question the stacking of spins in the vein of Airman's recent post, but it's deep and confusing and difficult to fathom.

1. Does the next stacked spin, upon a collision, occur around that point upon the B-photon's surface where contact is made, instead of an arbitrary center point (which is how I've shown it in my models, except the recent spin-collision one)?

2. If so, what would make the radius double? This is where things are getting dicey for me. I have no problem visualizing the X1 spin, but the Y1 and beyond? How does the B-photon know to spin about a point outside itself?

But really I just need to keep modeling and analyzing. Sorry for the slow progress on this, guys. Sometimes it gets really tedious.

Okay, here is a new video I made diagramming the first three stacked spins again. This one shows each collision in sequence, X1, Y1, and Z1. I studied the angles and vectors a bit more and this is what I came up with.

https://vimeo.com/214398901



It seems that our baby B-photon doesn't need to know its VoI center or spin axis locus. It's not concerned with that, but rather the collision motions "knock" it into the easiest possible path, which in these cases is to do an end-over spin into the next spin level. It's motion is being diverted. It doesn't need to use the spin's central pivot point as an axis - the diversion creates that point for us as a matter of study, but of course the B-photon doesn't need to know that point or care about it. We just use it for math and diagrams, in the same way we use the VoI shell and the motion trails. Just helpful constructs.

Does this make sense? Do you folks see anything blatantly wrong about this process? I can retime things and let our B-photon spin multiple times before each collision, if that would be helpful. And/or add in an initial collider, causing the A1 axial spin too, maybe?

That's pretty cool, Jared. I've been thinking of this type of thing for a while but got bogged down in getting the collision points and the new spin level to line up how I think they should. This was actually why I build my framework to use multiple apps in a single page that I am now using for my Interactive Papers. My intention was to create a series of animations to show each collision. I will get back to that, one day, but i'm glad you got something out there for us in the meantime.

I believe Miles has stated that the collision point actually becomes the rotation point for the new spin level, but that didn't make much sense to me. Maybe it needs a bit more thought.

Yeah, I don't see how the collision point could become the new rotation point and still stack a spin. My video above isn't dynamic, though, more an illustration and a lot of guesswork. The stacked spins are identical to my previous long video going up through Z3. I simply inserted some new "collider" photons, colored them different, and keyframed them "hitting" our B-photon at what I approximated as the appropriate points and vectors. Rough work, but it helped me answer some internal questions.

Here's a new vid, based on my last stacked spin vid at its core, but I added linear velocity after it reaches the Z1 fully. Also some labels to help newfolk see what's going on.

Of course, in theory our photon should be travelling UP, not sideways, but hopefully this vid helps or makes some sense? Any fatal flaws here, besides the obvious velocity not being anywhere near light speed?


https://vimeo.com/262448408

.
Hey Jared, The motion and labels are a nice addition.

Dragon Face wrote. … The length between high and low positions is the wavelength. The distance there and back perpendicular to the linear motion is the frequency. …

If the photon’s wavelength is its radius stretched by light speed, I don’t understand how that definition correlates with “The length between high and low positions is the wavelength". Then with the next sentence, “The distance there and back perpendicular to the linear motion is the frequency” – and I’m lost.

Compared to the corkscrew or sine wave overlay, the <- Wavelength -> label looks more like a wavelength and a half.

The viewer sees the creation of each, x, y and z spin. When you announce Linear Motion, the z spinner spontaneously travels to the right (forward motion in line with the top level spin axis). I suggest you start the forward velocity with a fourth initial collision.

I'm struggling to make critical comments. That's all I got; looks good to me.
.

Yes, that can definitely be worded better. How about:

"The distance between wave crests is the wavelength, and the distance of vertical travel is the frequency."

I do see what you mean by the "←Wavelength→" marker not being the same size as the waves themselves. Is that confusing?

.
"The distance between wave crests is the wavelength, and the distance of vertical travel is the frequency."

The first half is ok, or you might add the word major - "The distance between the major wave crests is the wavelength.

I don't understand the second half of the sentence. How can that "vertical" (radial or perpendicular to the direction at those major crests) distance at the major crest equate to frequency? It might just be me. I'm definitely uncertain. I was well indoctrinated in the traditional EM definition for many years.
.

Maybe this will make more sense?

"The distance between the major horizontal wave-crests is the wavelength. Frequency is how many waves are completed over a given span of time, illustrated by the vertical distance."

Miles got back to me readily as well, and he said:

Miles wrote:Yeah, that doesn't look right to me. No matter how many collisions it encounters, the final motion should be completely cyclical, never appearing random at all. The way you have it in the beginning, it is really too small for me to tell what is going on.

This needs a lot more work to be accurate and look good, show what I'm trying to show. I appreciate your help here, Airman, and hopefully Nevyn can chime in too with his analysis. He's better at stacked spins than I am, but this one is based on the last "correct-ish" simulation I did, shown here for quick reference:

https://vimeo.com/225368694

I recognize that path! I've seen it in SpinSim plenty of times. Well, close enough, anyway.

I believe, but can't prove, that the linear velocity should be in the same direction that the top spin level's rotation axis is pointing, as you have mentioned above. To be clear, that means that a top level Z spin will have a linear velocity that moves in the Z dimension (where-as the actual spin causes motion in the XY plane).

With respect to speed, you don't need it to be moving fast. It can move at any speed you want it to. You just need to match the spin speed with the linear speed. That is, you take the axial rotation and set some speed on it. Whatever value you specify must also be applied to the linear speed such that the linear velocity causes a change in position equal to 8 times the radius in the exact same amount of time that the axial spin completes 1 revolution. I think that is it, I'm working from memory here and it has been some time since I looked into this stuff. I think I have mentioned it on this forum at some point so you might want to go over any posts where we have discussed this before.

How did I come up with the value 8? Easy, it is the circumference of the BPhoton when its radius is 1. We need to match that circumference to the linear distance traveled in the same amount of time. Since 1 revolution equals 1 circumference, then the linear velocity must change the position by the same amount in the same time.

How do I know to match these speeds? Easy, because every spin level has a tangential velocity of c and the linear velocity is c as well.

Please note that I am using the center of all spins as the center point of the particle and this is how you measure the linear velocity distance. You can't take the position of the BPhoton itself as that is moving because of all of the stacked spins. If you only have a BPhoton, or even if it has an axial spin, then the center of that is the center of the particle that that BPhoton is creating. Once you start adding spins above the axial, then the BPhoton rarely, if ever, coincides with that point.

Maybe an example will help because I'm not sure if I am explaining this well enough.

Imagine we create a BPhoton and place it in a scene so that the BPhotons center is at (0, 0, 0). The center of the particle that this BPhoton creates is also (0, 0, 0). If we give the BPhoton an axial spin then the center has not moved for either of them. However, if we add an X spin, then the BPhoton is moved over by 1 radii and rotates around (0, 0, 0). Now the BPhotons center is moving with respect to the particle it is creating and it never ever goes through (0, 0, 0) again. The particle, now a photon, can consider its own center as still being at (0, 0, 0) because the average position of the BPhotons center is actually (0, 0, 0).

I am abusing the term particle here but only because the mainstream destroyed it decades ago. If we call an electron a particle then what does that term actually mean, given stacked spins? I need a way to differentiate between a BPhoton and what that BPhoton creates when it has various spins stacked onto it and I am using the term particle to do that. Sorry for any confusion, you can abuse me if it pleases you.

That all makes very clean sense, Nevyn. Thanks for chiming in. Sometimes I get a little lost in the details and try to absorb too much at once, but your clarifications always help.

So in my demo vid, the A1 spin takes 30 frames (1 second playback time). Its radius is .5 (cm).

Nevyn wrote:Whatever value you specify must also be applied to the linear speed such that the linear velocity causes a change in position equal to 8 times the radius in the exact same amount of time that the axial spin completes 1 revolution.

Am I correct then that our Z1-level photon moving along Z should be moving 4cm/s, to keep relativity to A1 spinning at pseudo-c?

It looks like this now, and has a more definite "path":


And from the end, looking back towards the beginning:


All the timings here for the stacked spins are based on that 30-frame A1 rotation, as we've gone over before, so the X1, Y1, and Z1 should be moving properly relative to A1.

Yes, that is correct.

Note that it doesn't matter how many stacked spins the particle has, that speed relationship stays the same. Only the axial spin and the linear velocity need to match and all spins stacked on top are relative to the axial spin as well. Everything is relative to that axial spin.