(Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

LloydK wrote:Stacked Spins Diagram Redone
Gee, you guys are picky. I think I have the spins right this time.

Haha, yes, maybe a bit picky but we are talking about the fundamentals of the universe, if ever there is a time to be picky, this is it.

< >While that second image is better, it still gives the impression that the X spin is very fast compared to the Y spin. That is, you have drawn a complete torus and have shown that to be spinning about the Y axis. Now, I don't see a better way to diagram it in a single image, but it is misleading.

LloydK wrote:
Nevyn, why don't you animate these yourself to show the torus shapes that each spin forms? It ought to be a lot clearer with your animation tools.

I am in the process of generating videos and writing a description. I will provide a link when I have it uploaded. Interestingly, the very first Y spin does produce a torus but not in the way you think it does.

LloydK wrote:
A propeller is two ends spinning about its center. Anything that moves slowly enough through the spin zone gets hit by one of the ends, or blades. You're saying I'm wrong to see the X-spin as like a spinning propeller? And the Y-spin isn't like a little spinning propeller on a bigger spinning propeller? And a Z-spin ... etc?

The X spin is fine the way you have diagrammed it because it is a solid sphere spinning about the X axis. < >It is the Y spin that is a problem because the X spin is only spinning 1.414 times faster than the Y spin. This means the Y spin has changed the motion of the X spin so you no longer have that nice torus that only an X spin would produce. If the X spin was, say, 100 times faster than the Y spin then you would have the torus from the X spin spinning about the Y axis and it would look something like what you have diagrammed. That is because the X spin has time to complete a rotation (or many rotations) before the Y spin can change its trajectory.

I came up with all sorts of spin paths in the early days and some of them I posted on the TB forum. But they were all wrong. Every single one of them. I had no idea what the spin speeds were so I just tried different settings to see what they could produce (and you would be suprised at what they can produce). I tried talking to Miles about it and still didn't get the answers I wanted. < >Eventually, as I was trying to understand Miles paper on Angular Momentum, I stumbled upon the correct spin speeds which I outlined in my post above.

LloydK wrote:
I think we need to diagram a collision between two photons to see how it might cause one or both of them to stack a spin. How about doing that with animation? Or is that what you were saying? The simplest stacked spin is the X-spin, isn't it? Why would a photon after hitting another photon spin around a point on its own surface? Why wouldn't it bounce away in a straight line like a spinning pool ball?

And why would the stacked spin give the photon or pool ball more mass or momentum?

There are 2 problems here: How do stacked spins move and Why do they stack spins. I can show you the first but I can't answer the second definitively. I have my justifications but I can't know why. Maybe no-one can ever know why. It is like asking why something exists. We know that it does but can never know why it does. Science doesn't work that way. Science starts with what we know, the results of an experiment for example, and then tries to fill in the why with theory. It is good to ask the question but you can't expect a definitive answer.

Doubters will throw this question at you expecting you to answer or your theory is useless but it is a false argument. Why does a photon travel at c? Why does space curve? Why do magnets attract? Why do they repel? Some of these things we may get definitive answers for but only by creating a level beneath them that will itself have something that is not definitive. When you get to the building blocks of the universe, there are no definitive answers. We have to work the other way. Accept what we know and try to find ways for that to happen.

< >I can animate a collision but it will just be my way of seeing that collision. There is no way to simulate it. Take a plasma simulator as an example. None of those simulators start at the fundamental level. They all just accept EM and work with it. They don't know why EM behaves the way it does but they do know that it does behave in certain ways and they build from there.

< >My way of thinking about it is to have 3 forces acting on every B-Photon. Note that my forces ONLY affect the B-Photon and are not about interactions between B-Photons (but they can affect those interactions). This differs quite noticeably from mainstream science which works the opposite way. They define everything in terms of interactions: like charges repel, opposite charges attract, mass attracts other mass, and so on and so on. There are no definitive answers as to why these things happen any more than in my theory.

I am here to help you all understand the How and am happy to theorize about the Why but I know that there is no answer to the Why. So I take the simplest Why I can think of and work from there on the How. I start with stacked spins as a given and then try to figure out how they operate. How do the B-Photons move? How would they interact with a charge field? These are questions I can work with.

At some point I started to question what I thought I knew. < >I would ask myself questions like "Why do the B-Photons spin?" and one day I realised that I was taking straight line motion as a given. Do I really know that straight line motion is normal and spin is esoteric? No, I don't. We all tend to think that what we experience is the norm but what if it wasn't? What if spin is the normal motion at the photon level? What if straight line motion only happens because it is not possible to add another spin level? Try thinking about it from that direction. Take spin as the given and then try to explain straight line motion. You end up at the same place but with reversed roles. If everything spins, why would anything move in straight lines? We CHOOSE to look at it the other way because straight line motion is normal to us.

I have some videos that I hope will help on this page <http://nevyn.t15.org/science/mathis/particles/spin/spinception.html> along with some descriptions of what they show. These videos allow you to see the motion of a B-Photon with different levels of spin. It is a lot of information to take in and you probably won't see all of it in 1 or 2 viewings. They are not meant to convince anyone that stacked spins are real only that if they are real, then these clips will show the motion.

I'm happy to see this discussion.  

I'll throw in an unrelated side question.

I happen to believe in < >expanding earth theory. The theory can be explained by Miles' charge field recycling. The current period of slow creation of Earth's matter, resulting in an increase of 6 inches of diameter a year (and growing exponentially) is explained by an imbalance in Earth's recycling Charge Field. There are more incoming photons than there are emitted photons. There may be a critical density of photons, above which, matter will grow. If the density of recycling photons in our corner of the galaxy were too low, the Earth would emit more photons than it received, and so the Earth would begin shrinking. The critical charge field density could be related to the amount of time photons are trapped in neutrons and other neutral matter.*

Constant creation or distruction.

Any thoughts?

REMCB

*Note, this is part of a larger post at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734&p=99789#p99789 I posted earlier today.

Steve,
Your latest link, as well as your site, has again become blocked.
FilterBypass gives me the message "Your computer IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is listed at StopForumSpam database so your visit is blocked. You can unblock yourself by entering the following code:",
but there is no code.
I suppose nothing should be easy.
REMCB

LongtimeAirman wrote:Steve,
Your latest link, as well as your site, has again become blocked.
FilterBypass gives me the message "Your computer IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is listed at StopForumSpam database so your visit is blocked. You can unblock yourself by entering the following code:",
but there is no code.
I suppose nothing should be easy.
REMCB

Thanks Airman, I was thinking about trying to find another hosting site for other reasons (some of my videos disappeared) and this is the icing on the cake.

I've setup a new site at nevyn.t15.org. This is the specific page for spin building.

The site structure is exactly the same so you can replace nevyn.netai.net with nevyn.t15.org in any previously posted URL.

It can take up to 24 hours for the domain name to propagate around the world but I can already see it from Australia.

I have updated the previously posted links to the new site.

Thread Highlights
Note that I went through this entire thread and stuck red markers < > everywhere that I found seemingly especially important points.

Photon Clumping
Tom van Flandern once had a diagram on his site, http://metaresearch.org, showing that particles moving around randomly would tend to clump together into increasingly larger clumps, because as particles get close together other particles can't get between them to drive them apart. Here's an image showing random motions of particles before clumping occurs.


A field of photons could be represented like this in a box, with the added indication that the box is moving in one direction at light speed. A simulation of this may be helpful. I suspect that, if photons are elastic, they would not stick together much till a large group of them begin moving together.

LloydK wrote:
Electron Charge
Nevyn, where you said: "He does sometimes change his opinion in later papers [], as you discovered with < >the charge strength of protons and electrons." I don't really know that he changed his statement on that. Can you quote where he says how much charge electrons emit?

Lloyd,
  I was re-reading a recent paper and found this quote:

Miles Mathis wrote:For example, I have shown that the charge of the electron is not just opposite to the charge of the proton, it is 1821 times smaller as a matter of density or field strength.

Cheers,
Steve.

Nevyn said: http://milesmathis.com/prorad.pdf Miles Mathis wrote: For example, I have shown that the charge of the electron is not just opposite to the charge of the proton, it is 1821 times smaller as a matter of density or field strength.

I had said before: "MM gave the figure of 35,000 as the number of electron masses in photons recycled by each electron per second, but that (35,000 electron masses per second) turns out to be the same as 19 proton masses per second, so he's apparently saying that the charge of each is the same."

That's in The Heliospheric Current Sheet http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf "recycling 35,000* times its own mass every second as charge, and the proton is recycling 19 times its own mass".

So are those contradictory statements? Shall we ask MM if they're contradictions?

Deuterium & Helium
Nevyn said earlier:

I don't see it quite that way in the case of alphas. The through-charge holes on the protons line up and the protons are held together by the charge flowing through both of them (the through-charge, not equatorial). The neutrons are not part of that charge path. They are further out from this central region and take charge (through their own central holes) from the equatorial charge of the protons, if at all.

Here's MM's diagrams of D and He:

He shows the charge streams going through the neutrons. Right?

Lloyd, you missed the most important part of that quote where Miles says IF the electron charge was equal to the proton THEN it would emit 35000 ...

Miles has stated in many papers that they are not equal in charge but sometimes uses the assumption that they are against the mainstream.

Regarding D and He, I am aware of Miles idea but haven't put enough time into it to say one way or the other. I've mainly focused on either side of it so far with spin and atomic models. I think he is trying to find a reason for the neutrons being part of the structure of an alpha. It makes sense if they are held in a there by charge flow.

Forgot to mention that I have discussed the charge issue with Miles (in an early paper on dark matter, I think) and he definitely does not believe they are equal charge.

I wasn't able to open that paper yesterday, http://milesmathis.com/helio.pdf, for some reason, so I was only able to quote what the Google search brought up, i.e. part of the sentence. I was able to open it now and I see the footnote says this:
*The electron doesn't have a charge of e, it has a charge of e/1821, so its actual number is 19 as well. The electron is responding to a charge of e only when protons are around, in which case the entire field has a charge of e." So I guess I finally have the right figure. But now I'd like to learn what all the evidence is for that conclusion.

I started 2 new threads:
One is Highlights of this Thread at
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t24-highlights-of-diagraming-thread
The second is Proton-Electron Attraction at
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t25-proton-electron-attraction

I discovered that Miles update page is not working correctly today and there is a lot more content on them including links to the older update pages (3 in total). It could just be in Firefox, I haven't tested any other browsers.

Anyway, this led me to re-reading some papers and I found this paragraph which answers a question Airman asked about whether spins are quantized or continuous. In essence, they are both. When gaining a spin, it is quantized but when losing a spin it is continuous.

Note: Miles is talking about the image he uses to explain Beta decay and the Photon to Anti-photon ratio.

Miles Mathis wrote:I will point out one more extraordinary thing in closing. We are told that everything is quantized at the quantum level, but we have clear evidence here that it isn't. Some things are quantized, some things aren't. To create this spiral, the electron must be losing energy in a continuous manner. A spiral is not quantized. It is a continuous curve. It is physically impossible to draw a spiral like this in a bubble chamber with a quantized curve. There is no such thing as a quantized curve. For the electron to lose energy in a quantized manner, it would have to emit a photon or something. But we don't see that here. The electron doesn't shed that extra spin level all at once, does it? It loses spin just like you would if someone stopped pushing your carousel. What this means is that the electron tends to gain energy in a quantized manner, because the photons spins are quantized. But it can lose energy in a continuous manner. The spin slows in a natural manner, and there is no need for the electron to emit anything to slow this spin. Yes, the beginning and end points of this spin loss are quantized, since the electron moves to definite levels which are supported by the charge field. But the electron does not have to jump instantaneously from one spin level to the other in going down, as we see clear evidence of here. These spirals are rather obvious data against Bohr's quantum leap.

From http://milesmathis.com/index.html
257. A Better Theory of Pair Production.  http://milesmathis.com/spiral.pdf I show a clearer and more extensive mechanics beneath the data and diagrams.

Nevyn wrote:Anyway, this led me to re-reading some papers and I found this paragraph which answers a question Airman asked about whether spins are quantized or continuous. In essence, they are both. When gaining a spin, it is quantized but when losing a spin it is continuous.

Hi Steve!

Thanks for making me re-read this paper. I remembered it solely as evidence of the 2:1 ratio of photons to antiphotons in the Earth’s ambient charge field; not as the continuous loss in spin energy of electrons and positrons.

I could quibble, and point out that spin slowing is continuous, but the spin loss endpoint is not, as, from above, “the beginning and end points of this spin loss are quantized”.  I can only dream of speaking so precisely.

I still haven’t recovered from your ‘clarification’ that all atomic matter is simply stacked spins of single photons. I was certain that that an electron was comprised of millions of photons. Miles’ observation here better reflects your understanding, even though the shedding of millions of photons possibly recycling out of that spin (originally charged by the laser but not supported by the far less energetic ambient field outside the laser) would not necessarily quantize the spin slowdown.

You haven’t made me say uncle yet. The normal (stable) complex spin path of the electron/photon may be enabled by the many regular photons recycling through the spins. The somehow unstable electron/photon’s loss of regular photons, not being replaced with incoming photons, may be why the outer spin is losing its energy.
 
Airman

Please excuse my hiatus. Mainly due to work and too much news.

Hi Airman & Nevyn. Airman said: "I was certain that that an electron was comprised of millions of photons."

There are a lot of contradictions in MM's model that need to be ironed out, so don't give up on anything that seems to make sense. The stacking of spins seems to be on very shaky ground, until there's a sensible way in which a photon can be made to spin around a point on its surface. A y-spin and a z-spin photon are even shakier, since a point on either surface is rather virtual, as Nevyn pointed out not long ago. So I think we should try to be flexible in our thinking, so maybe someone will hit on an explanation that pans out.

I invited Daniel Archer by PM to join this forum, since he seems to favor MM's model. I'll try to invite SeaSmith too.

I started a thread about the Sun under Projects at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t26-the-sun#176. Check it out.

Hi Airman,
I found it quite interesting re-reading some old papers too. I found things I missed on my first read (and probably the second) as I didn't understand enough at the time to comprehend them at a deep level. I find that once I think I understand something, I then need to re-read it all to find things that sit on top of what I now understand. Then they start to make more sense to me and it builds in layers. I guess you could say the acceptance of information is quantised.

In this case, I found Miles saying how the recycling of the charge field fuels the particles spin. The particle takes a little bit of energy to keep its spin going and in doing so changes the charge field photon. This leads into, among other things, the differences between particles and anti-particles which will emit the charge photons with an UP spin or a DOWN spin, for example.

I noticed that the idea of quantized spin going up and continuous spin going down fit my description quite well. I guess I sub-consciously saw it that way without remembering where I got the idea from, specifically. I've been thinking really low level lately, thanks to this discussion, and am trying to find a way to simulate the gaining of spins through collision or atleast my way of seeing it. It gets very complicated really fast so I'm slowly making my way through it, as best I can. I should start a new thread with my ideas and let you guys shoot them down. I'll try to write up my current view and see if I'm willing to publish it.

Hi Lloyd,
I wrote that above before you posted but I think some of it applies to your post as well.

LloydK wrote:There are a lot of contradictions in MM's model that need to be ironed out, so don't give up on anything that seems to make sense. The stacking of spins seems to be on very shaky ground, until there's a sensible way in which a photon can be made to spin around a point on its surface. A y-spin and a z-spin photon are even shakier, since a point on either surface is rather virtual, as Nevyn pointed out not long ago. So I think we should try to be flexible in our thinking, so maybe someone will hit on an explanation that pans out.

I just want to point out that given my description on this thread (about orthogonal collisions causing new spins) the new spin level (even Y's and Z's) would be about a point on the actual surface of the BPhoton initially, since only the BPhoton can collide with another particle, but the motion would soon move the BPhoton as all spin levels dictate the motion of it at the same time. It is easier to talk about the sphere of gyroscopic influence (which is a virtual concept or abstraction, not real like the surface of a BPhoton) but the real surface must be involved in all collisions.

I'm not so sure there are a lot of contradictions either. There is definately room for more detail and reasons why things might work a certain way, but I wouldn't say there are contradictions. Most contradictions I have found in the past turned out to be my understanding that was wrong. A re-read of certain papers (after I understood other things) would let me see it differently and I realised that I had not really heard what Miles has said initially.

As I mentioned above, I am trying to find the mathematical operations to build stacked spins. A set of rules for gyroscopic collisions that will generate the particles we know about given the right conditions. I think this is the physics model I have always wanted to build. A truelly fundamental model that is completely mechanical. It is a complicated task but you guys have helped me see it a bit clearer now so hopefully I can work with that and create something useful.

Dear Nevyn,

I wonder how to use your atomic viewer for some molecules, for instance molecule such as OH, NO, O2, I have a bit ideas what is carousel, hook, cap, etc.

Did you have any instructions? I only guess the answer.

Many thanks.


Kenneth Ng

Unfortunately, Atomic Viewer is not capable of creating molecules yet. It is in the plan but I haven't worked on AV for some time. There are a lot of changes required to take that next step into molecules.

Thanks Nevyn. I try to draw it by myself then.
Thanks again.