Interactive Papers

The intention of this project is to rewrite some of Miles' papers to include apps and animations in them to demonstrate the concepts being discussed. I have a good framework in place that allows multiple apps to be used on a single page. The main work is creating the scenes for each app. Since I built this framework to demonstrate stacked spins, I already have useful objects for that and should be able to make good progress with those papers. I will then look into incorporating the atomic models used in Atomic Viewer and work on the nuclear papers. I also want to look into Relativity since I already have a working model and just need to fit it into a slightly different framework.

Here is a link to the Interactive Papers index page: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/.

From there you can get to each paper that I have published. There are only two at the moment but it will grow, in time.

Feel free to suggest papers that could be enhanced with animations and apps. Describe what you think the animations should show. Try to keep them simple. We will need complexity some times, but my intention is to show the simple things that help people understand the complex things. But don't let that get in the way of a good idea, either. At least get the ideas down here and I can see what I can do with them. Try to keep each post about a single paper. Long lists of papers will just overwhelm me but a clear, concise idea will get my attention.

Also, if you are at all artistic, then please feel free to comment on style and colors, etc. That is not my strongest area of expertise. I know what I do and don't like, but creating something that I do like is difficult.

This post will contain a list of papers that are in the pipeline, in progress and completed. I will edit it as ideas come in to reflect my intentions.

Paper	Animations	Status
Electrical Charge	Charge emission	Completed
	Charge emission vs Electron and Proton	Completed
What is "Charge"?	Charge emission	Completed
	Charge emission vs Electron and Proton	Completed

Particle Structure
Nevyn, your particle structure in the first app in your modified MM paper on Charge seemed to show a polar opening at first, but then after a while I think it filled it in. Was that a mistake in the app?

From our discussion in the previous thread, I gather that the B-photons that enter into the poles of particles are moving rather slowly, which is why the single resident photon of the particle is able to run circles at light speed around the B-photons to corral them toward the equator or back to the pole for exiting. Is that how you picture it? Do you think you'd be able to show close-ups of the resident photon running circles around the B-photons? I assume the resident photon would have the entire mass of the particle, which would mean the B-photons would be pushovers for it. Right?

Miles' site still isn't accessible. I emailed him an hour or two ago asking when we can expect it back up.

I am only showing the emission in those papers. No intake photons at all. When it starts, which is only when it comes on screen, the BPhoton starts recording its path. You can see the circular nature of the charge shader behind it and I assume that is what you mean by polar opening. After the BPhoton makes a few revolutions, around 20, the recorded path covers that circle in the shader particles. That is by design. Now that the green path is full(er), you can see the center, which looks sort of like a wide open mouth, that is the polar opening.

If you look closely, you can see what look a bit like tonsils. Watch the BPhoton as it moves through this area and you will see that it always moves in the same direction. It moves straight at the viewer in this view point (looking down the Z axis) and this would tend to push ambient photons in that direction creating through-charge (which I am not modeling in this app).

As far as BPhoton speed goes, no I don't believe that they are moving slowly at all. They are moving at c. The proton does not corral them because it is faster. I actually don't even think that it does corral them. I know Miles has stated that they do, but I don't see how. With a fuzzy idea of stacked spins I could see how the idea might come up, but now that I have SpinSim, it doesn't look like it could work like that.

Nevyn, you seem to be calling the particle's resident photon a B-photon, but you previously said a B-photon has no spin or spin levels. You also previously said a B-photon could be going any speed less than c, I think. The B-photons are defined by Miles as bombarding photons, I believe, which is what the B stands for. So I think you need to get the terms defined here and stick to them. I don't know why you object to B-photons traveling less than c now.

I tried to email Miles yesterday to ask when he thinks his site will be available, but the email didn't reach him. And his site is still inaccessible. Hopefully, someone can get word to or from him soon.

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my words there. It is important to realise that the proton is not channeling BPhotons, it is channeling charge photons, which are predominantly in the IR spectrum. These are not BPhotons, they are BPhotons with many spin levels, so a photon. I know Miles, in his early papers, said that charged particles are channeling BPhotons, but later papers make it clear that it is actually IR photons. He had not calculated the average photon yet, when he wrote the early papers, so he talked about BPhotons a lot. He later refined his ideas since he had made other connections between things that affected those earlier ideas.

Another problem, specific to me and the language I use, is that I am often talking in two different nomenclatures at the same time. One is the physics nomenclature and the other is programming nomenclature, specifically, the programming objects that I create to represent the physics objects. I should be more careful with the words I use since you guys have no hope of knowing about the programming objects I create. In this case though, I was talking about the physics BPhoton and its speed.

So, to be clear, I believe that the BPhoton (with no spins) can move slower than c, but this does not affect charged particles because they are channeling charge photons, which are moving at c. Therefore, the charge particle can not corral them inside of itself because of that speed.

I have added a new section to my website and this is a big, but tentative, step for me because it is going to contain my own writing. I plan to formalize some of my ideas into papers and publish them. I have made a start with a paper about spin velocity and I would very much appreciate your criticism. I will let Miles know about it shortly but I wanted your thoughts before I step off the ledge.

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/papers/

.
Great job Nevyn, I provided my nitpicking review input via pm.
.

I have made some updates to fix issues that Airman found and there is still some work to be done with some of the wording in the intro and outro. It could use a bit of color too, so I will look into that soon.

Good read Nevyn and easy read.  Maybe add a diagram or two of stacked spins for newbies?

Yeah, I initially used my multi-app template to build the page, thinking that I would add in a few stacked spins or anything else I could think of that might help. But it kind of turned out more mathematical than I was thinking. I didn't think that it needed any more. I was thinking of adding a new section to the bottom about how to use these equations. Explain how I build stacked spins and how these equations can be used to get the motions and timings correct. That would certainly contain some animations to show the equations in action. I'll give it some more thought. In my mind I had relegated all of that into another paper specifically about building stacked spins.

Another reason I was hesitant to add apps to the page is that I know Miles has trouble using them in his browser. It is important to me that he is able to use the page effectively but at the same time, my apps are what I bring to the table. Yes, this is a venture out into the world of writing my own physics theories, but I still think my apps are what differentiates me at the moment. I feel like I have to walk a fine line. Maybe what I should do is create some GIFs from my apps or even just build them directly.

Thanks for the feedback.

I tried to improve my intro and outro, but managed to add more to the middle and I realised why angles are inverted to distances so I changed the end. Although, I'm not real happy with the wording in that last paragraph. I'll probably change it again. I am struggling with that intro though. Not sure what to put up there.

.
- If you're back in draft mode, I want a redo read too.
- In all honesty, I'm still in the trying to understand it well enough to finish the first reading.
- I see you are describing light speed motion that reveals the limits of curvature and curved motion.
- The point of the ratios is still lost on me.
- Oh, by the way, I would suggest getting rid of all those decimal place numbers - the velocity numbers, not the ratios; carrying 7 or 8 digits everywhere is a poor practice that smacks of numerology.  
-Looks great Nevyn!
.

If you don't see what those ratios are all about then I have failed to explain that properly. I'll have another look over it and see if I can shine some light on it. It is a bit trickier than the previous section where it is pretty much straight equation building. The ratios are about relationships between spin levels, but I don't want to explain it here as it is needed in the paper.

Can we still call it a paper if it is being served online? Should we start calling them screens?

I don't think I agree about the decimal places though. I am only using 3 and the data I generated had a lot more. I figured 3 was enough to show that they are not integer values but I did check to see if the same ratios came out if I used them as integers and they did, at least to 3 decimal places.

A few more updates, including a new intro written by Airman and massaged into my own words, but only slightly. Huge thanks for that. I also added an abstract at the top explaining the purpose of the paper and a footer to explain my coining of the term Angle Velocity.

.
For discussion purposes only.

- I think I understand the ratios now. This graph is not included as a recommended image for your Intertoob Virtual Paper Screen, I just plotted the two velocities to see the curves, so I had no excuse to claim misunderstanding the consecutive value ratios.
- I agree. You may wish to be a little more explicit concerning the new Angle Velocity terminology.  
- QUOTE The two equations are inistricably linked.UNQUOTE. Please change "inistricably" to "inextricably"
- Feel free to use any of my words strung together how ever you see fit. I'm happy to help.
.

Damn, I knew I wasn't spelling that word correctly when I wrote it but forgot to check it and didn't want to lose my train of thought at the time. Thanks.

Your graph is a good idea. I have had thoughts of creating a much larger graph, using more values, because I think this is tied into why you can't keep stacking spins. As the radius gets larger, the curve of that graph changes. It looks more like an e^x graph. My assumption, and I haven't put much work into it yet, is that the point where the graph curves the most, is the point where you can't stack any more spins. It needs a lot more research but that is the impression I have gotten when playing with the angular velocities.

Another update with a rewrite of the outro after rethinking the inverted relationship and some more content in the middle dealing with the ratios and their equations, showing that we can use any spin level to find the velocity of another and also the importance of curvature and how that changes everything.

I think I am getting pretty close now. I'll look more into images and graphs and see if I come up with anything that will help.

.

- Not trying to break your rhythm, I had to look. I didn't dress it up any.
- The abstract and footer work well. Maybe insert extra return lines here or there for extra space.
- Your Paper's looking professional.
.

I added some space around the banner image and abstract. I also got the image to scale to the size of the page it is on. It wasn't working so well on mobile phones.

I have found a javascript chart library (ChartJS) and I will look into using it to show a couple of graphs. One for the angular velocities and another for the angle velocities. They don't work well on the same graph because of the differences in values.

It is interesting that the angular velocities create an S curve. Why do they start to decelerate? Why do they approach 300,000,000 while the angle velocities just keep approaching 0? It is interesting that the value is 300,000,000 which is the speed of light in m/s and the tangential velocity being used in this equation. Now that I think about it, what it is doing is straightening out the curvature so the closer it gets to the tangential velocity, the straighter the curve is. My suggestion is that somewhere on one of those curves is where we can't add any more stacked spins. It curves up at around 20 spin levels, which I have calculated as the proton area but am unsure if that is correct or not as it conflicts with some of Miles work, and curves back at around 32 levels.

This could turn into a whole new section of my paper.

If we look at the size of those levels at 20 and 32, we find that:

Level 20: r = 2^20 = 1,048,576
Level 32: r = 2^32 = 4,294,967,296

Remember that these are relative numbers, starting at 1, not the size of a BPhoton.

But if we look at level 33 we find:

Level 33: r = 2^33 = 8,589,934,592

Why do I want that number? Because Miles has shown that the BPhoton is G times smaller than the proton. G = 6.67x10^-11 which, when inverted, give us just below 16 billion. If we go to level 34, we get to over 17 billion and that is too far, but we can assume a proton smaller than that and its charge field takes up the rest of the space.

Coincidence? I think not!

.


I think your level count is one off.

Level 21: r = 2^(21-1) = 1,048,576

Level 34: r = 2^(34-1) = 8,589,934,592

.

Yes, I saw that later. This is caused by the 2^N equation I was using as it starts at 0 rather than 1.

However, I have realised that the levels aren't exactly what they look like anyway. You see, it is the value that is causing that curve change, not the level. I created a graph using the above data up to 40 levels and the curves were around 20 - 34. I then changed the radius to that of the BPhoton and the curves were nowhere to be seen. At this point I thought that my paper was in trouble because it meant that there were limits to what I had found. It was still useful, as long as you adhered to those limits. I then extended the graph out to 120 values and the curves returned. This showed me that it was the actual value of the radius that caused the changes.

This was a good thing for my paper, as it meant those limits were a long way above what we need for stacked spins. However, it was a blow to my connection between those curves and the size of a proton. There might be a connection between stacked spins and planetary orbits though. The radius is very large at those curves but I haven't looked closely enough to speculate at the moment. It requires more study but I will drop this idea from my paper. I will show these graphs though, all of them, but I will do that to show the limits of the relationships and maybe do another paper later if I find something in my research.

.
Nevyn, I posted the comment and list as general info. As you've said, things are so mechanical and straightforward that everyone can communicate and follow along easily.

In Spin Velocity your description of angular velocity begins with a link to Miles' Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum, http://milesmathis.com/angle.html

Miles' paper includes a quote I've used before in the pi=4 discussion.

ω = √[2r√v2 + r2) - 2r2]
r = √[ω4/(4v2 - 4ω2)]

Not as simple as the current equation, but much more logical. Instead of strange scaling, we get a logical progression. As r gets larger, the angular velocity approaches the tangential velocity. This is because with larger objects, the curve loses curvature, becoming more like the straight line. With smaller objects, the curvature increases, and the angular velocity may become a small fraction of the tangential velocity.

You are expanding our appreciation of the angular velocity equation, and hinting at expanding your understanding of the radius equation as well - astronomical orbits?! what a cliff-hanger.  We're all enjoying your efforts and I'm even understanding most of it.

I've re-read Spin Velocity yet again. I don't see any errors. Your descriptions are clear, even including instructions in order to perform transformations. Thanks for including us in the process.
.

Include you guys? Of course. I wouldn't have written the paper if it wasn't for everyone here. I wouldn't even have a website as I set that up to share my work with all of you. It is me that should be, and am, thanking you. All of you. I really can't thank you enough. Would a mention in my Nobel acceptance speech be enough? Yeah, that'll happen!   Well, the thank you certainly would but I don't see any awards in my future! Luckily, that's not why I do this.

OK, enough of this mushy stuff , back to work.

When using the BPhoton radius, which I can't remember the exact figure of at the moment so I am using 2.34E-24 which is pretty close, and looking to 9 decimal places, the √2 relationship doesn't change until we reach 1m. I don't remember the specifics, but Miles has mentioned how everything changes around the 1m mark. He was discussing how quantum particles need to spin but planets and moons need to orbit, and how there is a zone of stability around the meter, the scale that we exist at. We don't need to spin or orbit but smaller things needs to spin and larger things need to orbit so that they can find stability. Maybe the reason for that is wrapped up in this equation.

The whole angular velocity equation breaks down once the angular velocity equals the tangential velocity. We should expect this because to be equal means the curvature has been straightened out. This occurs at a radius around 3.11E+12m. That is about half a million times the radius of the earth. Of course, planets and moons don't travel at c, so this might be leading me to some wrong conclusions. Linking orbits was just a guess based on the size of the radius but it is still worth looking at. I now suspect that it will be a different kind of study. I will need to reduce the tangential velocity where-as I am keeping it constant in this paper.

In the mean-time though, I will work on those graphs and write some words around them, studying the limits of the relationships I have found. At this stage, I don't think the limits apply to the transforms themselves, only the relationships between spin levels which are kind of a short cut around the transforms. As such, they are always inferior to the actual path.

First attack at graphing is available. I'm not sure I am completely happy with the words but I think I got the sentiment of what I wanted to say, if not the style.

.
Reviewing Spin Velocity http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/papers/spin-velocity.html
I've mustered the following comments. They hardly constitute alarm, let alone an attack. Nevertheless, take 'em or leave 'em.  

QUOTE. Through gyroscopic collisions, a topic that I will have more to say about later, photons can increase their radius and mass through a mechanism known as spin stacking.
Comment. The use of the term ‘gyroscopic collisions’ is noted. For collisions, Miles always uses the expression 'pool ball mechanics'. With respect to spin stacking the mechanism is understood to be end-over-end spinning. ‘Gyroscopic collisions’ is different, and the reader wonders how? Are you indicating your intention to provide another charge field theory series supplement, exploring collisions in detail? Otherwise, 'gyroscopic' is a charged word that must be used correctly, or even better, avoided.  

QUOTE. Instead of waiting for Miles to do it for me, I dove in, and my digging turned up some very useful information.
Comment. Imho, dove in and digging constitutes a mixed-metaphor, mixing swimming and digging. Recommend replacing “dove” with “jumped”.

QUOTE. Our desired outcome is to find an angle and we currently have a value expressing the revolutions per unit time. A revolution is the same thing as a circle so all we have to do is multiply that value by a circle and we will be given an angle per unit time. It really is that easy.
Here is the full equation:
θ/t = 2πgω/2πkr
Comment. Where did this full equation come from? Geometric and kinematic pi’s are both used! I assume it’s yours, of course. Sorry, I couldn’t follow the rationale between 'really is that easy' and 'Here is the full equation:'.

QUOTE. By using both versions of π, this equation shows the correct ways to use π and that Miles never intended to replace the conventional usage of π. He just wanted to show that it was not useful in certain situations.
Comment. Change ‘useful’ to ‘appropriate’.

Comment. Please consider titles for each graph. You need only expand the legend/series description:
1) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 20 levels.
2) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity – 20 levels.
3) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 40 levels.
4) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity –40 levels.
5) From Bphoton Angular Velocity to Bphoton Angular Velocity – 118 levels.
6) From Bphoton Angle Velocity to Bphoton Angle Velocity – 118 levels.

Comment. Since the graphs do not list Angular or Angle velocities, all numbers shown are associated with the horizontal and vertical axii.  Please consider a three or four decimal scientific notation that may be used for consistent formatting for all the graphs.

QUOTE. You can download a PDF version of this paper at www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/paper/spin-velocity.pdf.
1: I am
Comment. Please insert two line spaces after ‘.pdf.’ and before the ‘1:’ of the footnote.

Comment. Congratulations, Hoo Ahh!
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Reviewing Spin Velocity http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/papers/spin-velocity.html
I've mustered the following comments. They hardly constitute alarm, let alone an attack. Nevertheless, take 'em or leave 'em.  

I'll take 'em, well, most of 'em.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. Through gyroscopic collisions, a topic that I will have more to say about later, photons can increase their radius and mass through a mechanism known as spin stacking.
Comment. The use of the term ‘gyroscopic collisions’ is noted. For collisions, Miles always uses the expression 'pool ball mechanics'. With respect to spin stacking the mechanism is understood to be end-over-end spinning. ‘Gyroscopic collisions’ is different, and the reader wonders how? Are you indicating your intention to provide another charge field theory series supplement, exploring collisions in detail? Otherwise, 'gyroscopic' is a charged word that must be used correctly, or even better, avoided.  

I like that term because is shows that there is more than just standard pool-ball mechanics involved. However, your comment is valid, so I have added a foot note to explain the term. I hope that helps.

Yes, my intention is to write another paper about gyroscopic collisions with apps for demonstrations. I have started a How to Build Stacked Spins paper which will contain a fair amount of the same information so I might end up combining these into the one paper. I'll see how it goes. There is still a lot of work to be done for that paper. I do feel like I want to keep the papers separate, but they will cover much of the same material. However, the How to Build Stacked Spins paper will have more of a modeling perspective, although I have split it into 2 sections already: Modeling and Mathematics. I have written a bit in the modeling section but nothing in the math section so far. My intention for the math section was to get into using matrices to find the absolute transform for all spin levels of a given particle. I have the math, I just need to write the words around it and find a way to show the math in a nice way. The problem is how much knowledge can I assume my audience has. Can I assume they already understand matrices? It is difficult not to. I'm sure I'll find a way.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. Instead of waiting for Miles to do it for me, I dove in, and my digging turned up some very useful information.
Comment. Imho, dove in and digging constitutes a mixed-metaphor, mixing swimming and digging. Recommend replacing “dove” with “jumped”.

Yeah, that one kept leaping out at me every time I read it, but nothing came to mind to replace it. Your suggestion provoked me into an alternative.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. Our desired outcome is to find an angle and we currently have a value expressing the revolutions per unit time. A revolution is the same thing as a circle so all we have to do is multiply that value by a circle and we will be given an angle per unit time. It really is that easy.
Here is the full equation:
θ/t = 2πgω/2πkr
Comment. Where did this full equation come from? Geometric and kinematic pi’s are both used! I assume it’s yours, of course. Sorry, I couldn’t follow the rationale between 'really is that easy' and 'Here is the full equation:'.

I agree. I initially thought that I would step through as I build the equation, showing each stage but the words seemed to do a fine job in themselves and I didn't. I have added a couple more equations to show the steps involved.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. By using both versions of π, this equation shows the correct ways to use π and that Miles never intended to replace the conventional usage of π. He just wanted to show that it was not useful in certain situations.
Comment. Change ‘useful’ to ‘appropriate’.

Done.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Comment. Please consider titles for each graph. You need only expand the legend/series description:
1) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 20 levels.
2) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity – 20 levels.
3) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 40 levels.
4) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity –40 levels.
5) From Bphoton Angular Velocity to Bphoton Angular Velocity – 118 levels.
6) From Bphoton Angle Velocity to Bphoton Angle Velocity – 118 levels.

Done, with slightly different wording. I also added a paragraph to explain the use of 118 spin levels instead of, say, 120, which would fit the previous sizes. I'm impressed that you found that it was 118. How did you do that? I assume you looked at the code for the page.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Comment. Since the graphs do not list Angular or Angle velocities, all numbers shown are associated with the horizontal and vertical axii.  Please consider a three or four decimal scientific notation that may be used for consistent formatting for all the graphs.

I didn't want to use scientific notation if it didn't help the situation. When the radii start at 1, it actually gets in the way. Instead of nice round numbers like 1, 2, 4, 8, you get large, horrible, hard to read numbers like 1.000e0, 2.000e0, etc. I did think about consistency, but opted for clarity.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. You can download a PDF version of this paper at www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/paper/spin-velocity.pdf.
1: I am
Comment. Please insert two line spaces after ‘.pdf.’ and before the ‘1:’ of the footnote.

Done. I gave each foot note a bit of space around it.

Another part that bothers me is the, now 2nd, foot note about angle velocity. I use the words 'angle per time' but it feels like it should be 'angles per time' but that isn't strictly correct, it just sounds better. We wouldn't say a velocity is distances per time, we would just say distance per time. It is a single distance and it is a single angle. It still bothers me though.

.
Nevyn wrote. I like that term because is shows that there is more than just standard pool-ball mechanics involved. However, your comment is valid, so I have added a foot note to explain the term. I hope that helps.
QUOTE1: Gyroscopic collisions are an extension to pool-ball mechanical collisions that allow for spin stacking.
Airman. Recommend changing footnote 1 to read. ‘Gyroscopic collisions’ is not a new idea. It’s true Miles has avoided use of the word ‘gyroscopic’ in his descriptions of stacked spins. The truth of the matter is that stacked spins are indeed a series of nested gyroscopic motions.
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Yes, my intention is to write another paper about gyroscopic collisions with apps for demonstrations. I have started a How to Build Stacked Spins paper which will contain a fair amount of the same information so I might end up combining these into the one paper. I'll see how it goes. There is still a lot of work to be done for that paper. I do feel like I want to keep the papers separate, but they will cover much of the same material. However, the How to Build Stacked Spins paper will have more of a modeling perspective, although I have split it into 2 sections already: Modeling and Mathematics. I have written a bit in the modeling section but nothing in the math section so far. My intention for the math section was to get into using matrices to find the absolute transform for all spin levels of a given particle. I have the math, I just need to write the words around it and find a way to show the math in a nice way. The problem is how much knowledge can I assume my audience has. Can I assume they already understand matrices? It is difficult not to. I'm sure I'll find a way.
Airman. Sounds good Nevyn. I’m sure you will too. Use math appropriate to the subject matter. Don’t let anyone argue that in order to allow more people to understand, you somehow dumb it down; that is a false argument, and is detrimental to all those seeking greater knowledge.  
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Yeah, that one kept leaping out at me every time I read it, but nothing came to mind to replace it. Your suggestion provoked me into an alternative.
Airman. A shovel works!
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. I agree. I initially thought that I would step through as I build the equation, showing each stage but the words seemed to do a fine job in themselves and I didn't. I have added a couple more equations to show the steps involved.
Airman. Thanks, now I can figure it out.
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Done, with slightly different wording. I also added a paragraph to explain the use of 118 spin levels instead of, say, 120, which would fit the previous sizes. I'm impressed that you found that it was 118. How did you do that? I assume you looked at the code for the page.
Airman. I posted two angular and angle velocity graphs above, clearly I was plotting all along, verifying your numbers. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at your code, I consider it rude, you never invited me.
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. I didn't want to use scientific notation if it didn't help the situation. When the radii start at 1, it actually gets in the way. Instead of nice round numbers like 1, 2, 4, 8, you get large, horrible, hard to read numbers like 1.000e0, 2.000e0, etc. I did think about consistency, but opted for clarity.
Airman. Sorry, wrong choice of words; you're clearly trying to adjust to a difficult situation allowing the use of scientific notation. I suppose you considered labeling the horizontal axis with the natural numbers with the legend - 2^(N-1) - and identify specific velocity values. Sorry, I’m just being difficult.   
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Another part that bothers me is the, now 2nd, foot note about angle velocity. I use the words 'angle per time' but it feels like it should be 'angles per time' but that isn't strictly correct, it just sounds better. We wouldn't say a velocity is distances per time, we would just say distance per time. It is a single distance and it is a single angle. It still bothers me though.
Airman. How does Angle Rate sound?

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

Airman. I didn't hear your Hoo Ahh.
.

I just did a search for "Gyroscopic collisions" and the only result was my own post on this forum, but not this thread.

I'll think it over and see what I can come up with. I think what I mean by gyroscopic collisions is a bit different to the general usage of the term, not that it is all that general.

I agree that I can't dumb it down too much, but I feel it is my responsibility to bridge the gap. I put the Modeling section before the Mathematics section so that it would be easier to see what the math was trying to do as there will be many animations in the modeling part.

With respect to graph labels, I can set the horizontal values but not the vertical. The best I could do with the vertical, which are calculated from the data by the chart library, is to supply a function that could format the value. That allowed me to use scientific notation as before that, they were really long numbers and taking up screen space for nothing. I can use more of an equation for the radius labels. I'll give it a go and see how it looks.

This might not be the best Hoo Ahh, but it's The Rock, so all is forgiven!

.
Enthusiasm noted and approved. The Rock earns you a couple of additional comments.

You might inform the reader that you have in fact used this information in order to create a spin simulator.

You might consider a brief discussion or speculation of the possible radius, angular velocity and angle velocity of the electron or proton in light of the information you’ve provided.

Do you see any other possible applications besides spin stacking? One can easily make an angular/angle conversion calculator, maybe in R.

Not a whole lot of comments from the gallery. You must have scared them off.

Teaching how to build stacked spins, I’d sign up, though I might want a testimonial from Jared first.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Enthusiasm noted and approved. The Rock earns you a couple of additional comments.

You can always count on The Rock to help you out.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
You might inform the reader that you have in fact used this information in order to create a spin simulator.

I had thought about that in the beginning but I forgot about it as I got into the details of the paper. I thought I would add animations of stacked spins but it felt a bit out of place, hence the How to Build Stacked Spins paper where I had more room to focus on just spin building. A link to SpinSim would be fine though.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
You might consider a brief discussion or speculation of the possible radius, angular velocity and angle velocity of the electron or proton in light of the information you’ve provided.

The problem is I am not sure about those radii. It needs more research. Maybe it would be better in a follow up paper but I'm worried that there won't be much content to it. I won't really know until I get into the details though.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Do you see any other possible applications besides spin stacking? One can easily make an angular/angle conversion calculator, maybe in R.

I haven't thought about other applications. Of course, anywhere you use angular velocity can make use of these transforms.

I developed a Java Applet many years ago that shows the mainstream angular velocity next to Miles' angular velocity by rotating a line around a circle. This paper actually completes that since I now realise that it wasn't implemented correctly. It would be interesting to see the difference with this correction. I could create another graph to show the difference in Miles' angular velocity and mainstream angular velocity as the radius grows, not by doubling as I currently have focused on but with a more linear progression, probably centered on 1 since that is where the problems are for the mainstream angular velocity.

A converter is a good idea. Maybe what I should do is create a whole other page devoted to a conversion calculator. Not a paper, just some controls and text fields to enter values and calculate using these equations. I could do two of them, one for angular velocity and another devoted to stacked spins which would allow you to enter the spin level number and gives you the angular and angle velocities.

I have added a new section to compare Miles' angular velocity equation to the mainstream definition.
Updated the graphs to use a title and labelled each axis so they look a lot better.

Definitely in the home stretch now.

Wow nicely done!

Hooah!

.
1) Quote. Now that we have a proper transform, we can compare Miles' angular velocity equation to the mainstream version. We couldn't compare the values directly before but now we can put them both on the same graph and see how they differ.
ωms = Δθ/Δt = v/r
ωmm = √[2r√[v2+r2]-2r2]
Δθ/Δt = πgωmm/πkr

Comment. You certainly jumped into this new paper subtopic. The topic and graph are a really nice addition. Aside from having read Miles’ Angular paper, I had not understood that this was such a significant problem. Do you have any handy documentation, citation or reference indicating a problem with mainstream’s scaling around velocity of one and radius of one?

Comment. I’ve plotted ωms = Δθ/Δt = v/r. I haven’t been able to recreate the ωmm = √[2r√[v2+r2]-2r2] curve yet.  
ωmm  = SQRT(2*C4*SQRT( POWER(B4,2) + POWER(C4,2) ) -2*POWER(C4,2))
C4 is the radius and B4 is the velocity.

2) Quote. To the former, I direct you to Miles papers on π and to the latter, I can only say that I was as amazed as ... .
Comment. Change Miles to Miles’.

3) Quote. If you look at Miles angular velocity equation, you see that its most powerful ... .
Comment. Change Miles to Miles’.

4) Quote. The general trend of each graph is very similar with Mile's equation.
Comment. Change Mile’s to Miles’.

5) Quote. What does that mean? It just means that even though the angular velocity increases, the angle decreases.
Comment. Change ‘the angle decreases’ to ‘the angle velocity decreases’.

6) Quote. The following two graphs present angular and angle velocity over 20 spin levels.
Comment. Change ‘angle velocity over 20’ to ‘angle velocities over 20’.
.

1) No, I don't have any other citations for that and took it straight from Miles' paper. However, you can clearly see that it rises very sharply in my graph, when looking backwards from 1, which is a bit weird. After 1 we get a nice progression, slowly approaching 0, but under 1 we get this sharp rise.

You haven't used the transform in your plot. You have the raw angular velocity equation but not my transform to get to an angle.

2,3,4) Damn, I knew I had one of them in there but kept skipping over it when in edit mode.

5,6) Done.

Thanks, Airman. You've been a life saver. Did you ever think of being an editor?

.
Nevyn wrote. You haven't used the transform in your plot. You have the raw angular velocity equation but not my transform to get to an angle.
Airman. Ok. I get the proper mm Angle curve when I divide Δθ/Δt by my raw ωmm.

Quote. Angular Velocity table, radius 4, Angular Velocity 48989.794.
Comment. Change to 48989.795. Note that this number is repeated – with correct digits - in the Angular and Angle Velocity table.

The following apply to the pdf document http links:
Quote. According to Miles Mathis (www.milesmathis.com), all matter is created from real photons traveling and spinning at the speed of light. Through gyroscopic collisions, a topic … .
Comment. This link only worked with Chrome. Not Firefox (Firefox can’t find the server at nevyns-lab.dev) or Internet Explorer. (Hmm, we can't reach this page).
Comment. http://milesmathis.com/super.html checked good.
Comment. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html checked good.
Quote. to use both versions of π in the same equation. To the former, I direct you to Miles'
papers on π (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)  and to the latter, I can only say that I was as amazed as you … .
Comment. The http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html link works, but the link extends across two sentences.
Reduce the link to just the html address.

pdf Doc Comment. Please review the page breaks within the pdf doc. For example, the title of the Angular Velocity table is at the bottom of page 1 while the table is at the top of page two.

Nevyn wrote. You've been a life saver. Did you ever think of being an editor?
Airman. I devote myself with determination if not skill. Your paper is a most agreeable subject which I thoroughly enjoy.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Ok. I get the proper mm Angle curve when I divide Δθ/Δt by my raw ωmm.

That doesn't sound right. It should be θ = π_g * ω_mm / (π_k * r).
It really is θ/t, but t=1 so we can drop it.

It appears that the HTML code is not working on this post so the entity references don't work. I'll leave it as-is since it is still readable.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Change to 48989.795. Note that this number is repeated – with correct digits - in the Angular and Angle Velocity table.

Done.

LongtimeAirman wrote:This link only worked with Chrome. Not Firefox (Firefox can’t find the server at nevyns-lab.dev) or Internet Explorer. (Hmm, we can't reach this page).

I didn't expect that! nevyns-lab.dev is just how I access my dev server at home. It isn't a real domain name, just an entry in my host file to make it work like one. That URL is never used in the document. It must be using it because I generate the PDF on my home system before uploading everything. I will have to start uploading the HTML and then generate the PDF from that. I use Chrome to generate the PDF too, so that might be why it works and the others don't. Firefox also has a Print to PDF function but it puts headers and footers on the pages that I can't get rid of. Chrome allows me to choose to have them or not.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Quote. to use both versions of π in the same equation. To the former, I direct you to Miles'
papers on π (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)  and to the latter, I can only say that I was as amazed as you … .
Comment. The http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html link works, but the link extends across two sentences.
Reduce the link to just the html address.

I assume you mean the link moves the the next line, not sentence. There isn't much I can do about that. HTML text just flows however it can on the page. It doesn't listen to whitespace or new lines in the source code. I would have to either add more words to push the paper on π part to the next line or I could change the text size, which might work sometimes but not others.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
pdf Doc Comment. Please review the page breaks within the pdf doc. For example, the title of the Angular Velocity table is at the bottom of page 1 while the table is at the top of page two.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to get those to stay on the same page but nothing worked. There are ways you can tell sections to stay together but the browsers don't seem to listen in this case. I will try again though, as there might have been something else getting in the way. I have found that with other tricks.

Well, it didn't take too long to get the tables and graphs to remain on the same page. I found another CSS property to use that avoids breaking the sections.

Now the graphs are extending off the page again! I'll see what I can do about that later. They just don't want to behave.

.
Sorry to hit and run, Nevyn. I'll be off-line for the next few days for a family event. I also just started reading Reilly's Area 7.
.

No worries, thanks for all of your help. Now forget about it and enjoy yourself. Since you've just started Area 7, I know that you will.

I have managed to get the graphs to behave when printing. I had to assume a certain page size when printing though, unfortunately. I prefer it when everything works dynamically but these graphs have been a real pain. I like them, but they are not very dynamic. I spent considerable time getting them to be as dynamic as I could when they are on screen but then they would play up when printing. I use the Print to PDF function to generate the PDF, I don't actually print it.

I think that this paper is good enough now, so I will send a link to Miles and get his feedback. That is assuming his email is up and running again because I have had two emails bounce over the last few days.

.
Nevyn, I'm happy to see you've sent Miles (directions to) your paper - congratulations; unhappy to hear there may be an e-mail problem. If worst comes to worse, I'll just have to congratulate you again later.

While everyone's waiting, back to the old here and now. I've resolved my plotting error (for once it wasn't a conceptual error), not before reviewing both yours and the Angular papers again. No new errors to report, I'm sorry to say, although concentrating in this area through the last week or two has been quite satisfying. Thanks.



The mainstream value for the angular velocity blows up as we approach zero. I don't appreciate the mainstream 'scaling issue' around radius = 1, other than seeing, as per Mathis, it should actually be 0.7149.

Yes I did enjoy Area 7. Thanks again.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn, I'm happy to see you've sent Miles (directions to) your paper - congratulations; unhappy to hear there may be an e-mail problem. If worst comes to worse, I'll just have to congratulate you again later.

I received a quick reply stating that the graphs didn't work for him, the colors don't work correctly in Safari, so I sent back a link to the PDF version. He said that the PDF worked fine but I haven't heard anything since. I might give him a prod later today.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
While everyone's waiting, back to the old here and now. I've resolved my plotting error (for once it wasn't a conceptual error), not before reviewing both yours and the Angular papers again. No new errors to report, I'm sorry to say, although concentrating in this area through the last week or two has been quite satisfying. Thanks.

Well I am very happy to hear there are no new errors. Also happy to hear that the paper does provide some insight.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
The mainstream value for the angular velocity blows up as we approach zero. I don't appreciate the mainstream 'scaling issue' around radius = 1, other than seeing, as per Mathis, it should actually be 0.7149.

The problem isn't so much the value at 1, it is the way it grows larger as we move back from 1. The values below 1, as the radius decreases, start to climb very fast. We expect a climb, but not quite the way it does. Miles' equation gives a much smoother curve as the values are climbing at a slower rate. It is caused by the radius inverting the equation when it is below 1. Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10. Such a small change in radius should not cause such a large change in angular velocity.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Yes I did enjoy Area 7. Thanks again.

I've re-read all of the Scarecrow novels now and I got to the 4th book and couldn't remember a thing about it. Every other book I could remember the general plot, but not the last. Once I started reading it, it started to come back but I was a bit shocked that I couldn't remember much about the last one I read. Of course, that made re-reading it a bit better.

Nevyn wrote. I received a quick reply stating that the graphs didn't work for him, the colors don't work correctly in Safari, so I sent back a link to the PDF version. He said that the PDF worked fine but I haven't heard anything since. I might give him a prod later today.

You two may seem to be having great difficulty with your graphs, nevertheless I think they’re essential for understanding the relationship between angular and angle velocities and clearly add value to the subject. Formulas, tables and graphs are a trifecta for a numbers person like myself, I don't recall Miles ever doing that in any of his papers.

Nevyn wrote. The problem isn't so much the value at 1, it is the way it grows larger as we move back from 1. Miles' equation gives a much smoother curve as the values are climbing at a slower rate. It is caused by the radius inverting the equation when it is below 1. Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10. Such a small change in radius should not cause such a large change in angular velocity.

QUOTE> This is caused by the scaling issue found in the mainstream equation. Once the radius goes below 1, it doesn't work very well anymore. Miles doesn't have this problem and the angle follows a smoother progression as the radius decreases.
COMMENT. If you’re still taking recommendations, please consider replacing the previous QUOTE with the following QUOTE.
QUOTE> This is caused by the scaling issue found in the mainstream equation. Once the radius goes below 1, it doesn't work very well anymore. It is caused by the radius inverting the equation when it is below 1. Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10. Such a small change in radius should not cause such a large change in angular velocity. Miles doesn't have this problem and the angle follows a smoother progression as the radius decreases.

Nevyn wrote. I've re-read all of the Scarecrow novels now and I got to the 4th book and couldn't remember a thing about it. Every other book I could remember the general plot, but not the last. Once I started reading it, it started to come back but I was a bit shocked that I couldn't remember much about the last one I read. Of course, that made re-reading it a bit better.

I’ve read Scarecrow, Ice Station and Area 7, and celebrated by watching Marvel’s Deadpool and the first episode of American Gods. I’m not sure which the fourth book is, but I’m anxious to find it. I don’t need to tell you that one of life’s greatest pleasures is finding interesting new reads and authors, you may find most of Miles’ physics supporters saying the same about you. Like the world's most interesting man says, stay humble my friend.  
.

I agree, those graphs are great value. As much as I like Miles' work, I find that it isn't very well presented, sometimes. I am trying to make sure that I don't fall into the same traps. It is often just little things, like showing the equations being used and the working out (my math teachers always said it was the working out that mattered, not the answer) or showing the data in a table or graph. My advantage is that I am a software developer, so I can make use of that in my papers and that makes it easier for me to get a graph or animation up and running. I am also aware of libraries that I can use to style the page and give it a more modern feel and make it more mobile device friendly.

That is a good change and I will add it to my paper.

The fourth Scarecrow book is called Scarecrow and the Army of Thieves. There is a small novella before that called Hell Island but isn't really necessary, although still a good way to spend a few hours. I suspect that will be very hard for you to track down. It was a limited release even here and I stumbled upon it in a second-hand book store one day.

I haven't (re)started the Jack West Jr books yet, but I will soon. The latest in this series only came out in the US a couple of days ago, which shocked me because I read it before Christmas. Nice to see Australia get something first for once.

So I gave a little prod and got back a little response. Miles hasn't finished going through it (only read it once), but said that it looks good so far.

Phew!

I was getting a bit worried when I didn't hear back. It really hasn't been that long but it seemed so to me.

I have taken a little break from writing papers and creating animations. I decided to spend a bit of time on my site itself, rather than the content on it. It took quite a few hours, but I created an icon for my site. Actually, I created two of them. I looked around the web and didn't find anything that I liked, but I did get some ideas so I fired up my paint program and got to work. Creating art is not easy! However, I persisted and managed to create something that I liked.

My aim was to keep it simple. There isn't much resolution to most icons so there isn't much room to play with complex designs. Even less room when it comes to my drawing skills. I kind of worked backwards. I started with a 64x64 pixel image and created a simple flask, pixel by pixel. Once that was done, I started to create a few layers that would represent different colored liquids in the flask. The layers allow me to turn each one on/off so that I can use the same flask but choose which color I want in the flask.

Once I had that looking pretty good, I did some searching on website favicons. I found a site that, given an image, will create it in various sizes and also creates various metadata files as every platform (Windows, IOS, Android, etc) has its own way of doing things. It also allowed me to choose options so that the icon would fit into those platforms. If on an IOS device, it will look like other IOS icons. If on a Win 8.1 and greater device, it will fit into the Windows look & feel. Same for Android. Those take effect when you create a bookmark to the site.

Anyway, it turns out that the favicon generator prefers larger images. So I went back to my paint program and scaled it up from 64 to 260 pixels. Actually, I went through a few intermediate steps first, but that is where I ended up. It turns out that this was a blessing, rather than a curse. As I increased the resolution, it allowed me to use some special processing to soften the artwork. Once scaled back down again for the icons, it comes out quite well. If I had started at that resolution I wouldn't have created anything good because it is very difficult to work with such small pixels. At least it is for me. I tried another icon starting at 260 pixels and it didn't work out too well.

Here is the icon I created:


I generated the favicon files and put them into the site and it looked very good. I didn't stop there though. I then decided to attempt to create a second flask that was pouring out its contents. I just took what I already had and rotated it. Then I erased some of the liquid and added more in to show it spilling over the rim. Then I added a drop. It came up pretty well, but it didn't work out so well as an icon so I kept the original but may use this version at some time. Not as a site icon, but as an image.

Here is the spilling flask icon:


See how it makes it look smaller? That is why it didn't work so well as a site icon.

I wanted to create, or find, some other icons to represent areas of study. I struggled to find or come up with any idea of how to represent Quantum Mechanics though, so I abandoned that idea, for now.

I have also made a few of the pages a bit more consistent with each other. This was accomplished by two things. Firstly, I downloaded a few themed versions of a library I use to build my site (Bootstrap) and chose one. Secondly, I have changed my Interactive and Papers sections to use a backend database. This allows me to use the same code for those two pages and all of the parts come from the database. Adding new pages to the list will just require a few rows in some database tables. This also allowed me to add some smarts to the page so that it will change the color of items in the list based on if it has been published or updated recently. Fresh publications are highlighted yellow while updates are highlighted red. This has caused some issues with the Bootstrap themes and I might look into using some of the Bootstrap CSS classes to choose the highlight colors. I should have done that in the first place, but I just ran with an idea to see if it would work. It did, but the themes alter the colors of the rest of the page and that can make my choice of colors work against it. I also found that my site icon did not work so well on some of the themes. If it uses a dark background for the page header, the icon doesn't work. I have another version that uses a white circle behind the icon and this would work for those dark pages, but doesn't always work for the light ones. It is a bit of a pain. Such is the life of a web developer, or any developer for that matter.

And that's how I lost a weekend! It was a pretty cold and miserable weekend anyway, so I'm not too fussed about it.

Nevyn wrote. My advantage is that I am a software developer, so I can make use of that in my papers and that makes it easier for me to get a graph or animation up and running. I am also aware of libraries that I can use to style the page and give it a more modern feel and make it more mobile device friendly.

and

Nevyn wrote. A converter is a good idea. Maybe what I should do is create a whole other page devoted to a conversion calculator. Not a paper, just some controls and text fields to enter values and calculate using these equations. I could do two of them, one for angular velocity and another devoted to stacked spins which would allow you to enter the spin level number and gives you the angular and angle velocities.

You would have no difficulty creating a converter or interactive page. You've created Angular conversion graphs for your Spin Velocity paper. You might make them more user friendly or allow interactive plots, although additional work may involve far more effort than it’s worth, as demonstrated by the graphing problems encountered thus far. I would certainly expect to find an Angular Velocity simulator or Converter at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/ *. At home, I create plots in Excel, but few people have or use Excel to that degree. How difficult can it be to create a stand-alone converter, or interactive page, or the code necessary for one - and post it here?
 
Our standard is R. R is free, powerful, and a lot of code is widely available. I’ve posted a couple of R beginner efforts elsewhere on this site. I would describe R as follows: 
1. R is a single command line driven language. The command line awaits a valid entry.
>
2. R works as a perfectly good calculator. One can easily create new functions.  
3. R output can be displayed on plot areas, dependent on the host application, (I use RStudio).
4. R is especially useful in displaying data in complex formats – i.e. statistical diagrams.
Creating an Angular Converter in R is an interesting problem, trying to find a GUI for a perfectly good calculator.

I didn’t find many alternatives, but I think I found a good one. Interactive controls in a panel, with accompanying plots.

https://www.jstatsoft.org/index
Journal of Statistical Software. January 2007, Volume 17, Issue 9.
https://jstatsoft.org/article/view/v017i09/v17i09.pdf

rpanel: Simple Interactive Controls for R Functions Using the tcltk Package
Abstract. In a variety of settings it is extremely helpful to be able to apply R functions through
buttons, sliders and other types of graphical control. This is particularly true in plotting activities where immediate communication between such controls and a graphical display allows the user to interact with a plot in a very effective manner. The tcltk package provides extensive tools for this and the aim of the rpanel package is to provide simple and well documented functions which make these facilities as accessible as possible. In addition, the operations which form the basis of communication within tcltk are managed in a way which allows users to write functions with a more standard form of parameter passing. This paper describes the basic design of the software and illustrates it on a variety of examples of interactive control of graphics. The tkrplot system is used to allow plots to be integrated with controls into a single panel. An example of the use of a graphical image, and the ability to interact with this, is also discussed.

This source is ten years old, there may be several better alternatives. On the other hand, tcltk seems to be part of the standard R package and I’ve got the rpanel package too.

Understanding my problem a little better, I sought inspiration for an appropriate converter-like hyperlink calculator page or GUI. I went to what I consider to be the best interactive physics pages available, Hyperphysics http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html. Yesterday I happened across c as Speed Limit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c5, was taken aback by the s-curve and posted it in a separate string. If I’d posted it here, it would seem I were suggesting expanding Spin Velocity, … .

I'm just trying to decide if I know enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter.

//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////

* http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/ – Accessing your science site via my browsers. Doing a recheck, only Internet Explorer shows the various images and links available from that page. Firefox or Chrome only show the introduction paragraphs. This is different than I had first reported, sorry I confused the details, I was in problem finding mode. The problem still exists. My IT guy says that my Firefox and Chrome do not have any script issues with http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/, and that it is a site problem. If that is the case, a possible quick temporary solution would be to include links to each of your scientific applications from your Nevyn's Lab introduction paragraphs, since that’s the only part of the page I can see.

Does anyone else have difficulty reaching http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/ in their Firefox, Chrome or preferred browser?

PS. Nevyn, nice job. Does anyone else see blood in that vial?
.