Raman Scattering and the LASER

Comments on http:// milesmathis. com/raman. pdf

That charge field strength isn't determined by the vacuum or by absolute zero, it is determined by the Sun's recycled field, and is therefore a result of our place in the galaxy and Solar System.

It still seems obvious to me that stars and planets store photons (not stationary, but moving at light speed in constant reflections/recyclings). In glass, photons go about 2/3 the speed of light. Right? Do they actually slow down, or do they go in small zigzags from bouncing off of atoms or recycling, giving them a longer path? Likewise, within planets and stars, photons do much more zigzagging, so it takes them thousands of years on average to exit the planet or star.

The nucleus is a big spinning engine, made up of many smaller fans, and it creates a real photon wind via a real and classical mechanics.

What's a little hard to believe is that photons are the fuel for these engines & fans & they're also the output, which is fuel for the next (or the same) engines and fans. How can fuel power an infinite series of engines & fans without being exhausted? Or do the photons gradually lose energy, as in the Compton effect?

Anyway, in both excitation and stimulated emission, the basic mechanism is a boost of the existing ambient charge field, already channeling through the nucleus.  When we introduce light, we are basically introducing new charge, since light and charge are the same thing: photons.  The boosted charge stream spins up the nucleus, which then spins up the entire charge stream.  In short, visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength. If the channeled charge stream already matches its wavelength, due to prior boosting, then a LASER is created.  Since the existing stream has been pre-tuned to the incoming stream, the incoming stream can pass straight through the nucleus along the main channel, south pole to north, with no stepping up or down and therefore no interference.
_The proper substance is one where the nucleus has no carousel level, (meaning group one and two elements, in the simplest analysis).
_You just want your ambient charge field to be very rich in photons and very poor in antiphotons, and that can be achieved with a strong magnetic field of the right sort.  It is fairly easy to turn antiphotons into photons (flip them over), or to exclude antiphotons.

Does anyone know what Miles means by "visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength"? I mean how exactly are the IR photons spun up?

(I've now started to read the Graphene paper, but I first went to review the methane paper, and I found this quote, which may help explain spinning up. I'm not sure it does, but it uses the term "spun up".)

It has been found that Carbon, although normally non-magnetic, can be very magnetic in some situations.  I would suggest that the varying nuclear make-up of different forms of Carbon explains this in the most direct and mechanical way.  It would appear that Carbon in compound with itself can re-arrange in the same way we saw it re-arranging in CO2, especially in an irradiated field or in long chains.  Once you have two prongs on each end of Carbon and only one alpha in the core, this will create a spun-up through charge, which is what causes magnetism.

Do you all agree that lasers and even spotlights or flashlights are proof that light is ballistic photons and not waves? If it were waves, such as sound waves, they would move out in all directsions. I read long ago, maybe in the 80s, that a laser aimed at the Moon from the Earth covers an area 2 miles in diameter on the Moon. I don't know if that's still the tightest beam they can make. I wonder if it spreads out because the IR from Earth goes through Earth's surface curvature, like a lens. If so, then a tighter beam might need to be made from a long rod in space containing period I and II elements. Right?

.
Comments on http://milesmathis.com/raman.pdf

Miles wrote. That charge field strength isn't determined by the vacuum or by absolute zero, it is determined by the Sun's recycled field, and is therefore a result of our place in the galaxy and Solar System.
Lloyd wrote. It still seems obvious to me that stars and planets store photons (not stationary, but moving at light speed in constant reflections/recyclings). In glass, photons go about 2/3 the speed of light. Right? Do they actually slow down, or do they go in small zigzags from bouncing off of atoms or recycling, giving them a longer path? Likewise, within planets and stars, photons do much more zigzagging, so it takes them thousands of years on average to exit the planet or star.
Airman. I agree with you Lloyd. Miles is just taking the longer view. Despite the many tens of thousands, millions or even billions of years for photons to recycle through the planet, the question of whether Earth will continue to be the planet we know and love is determined primarily by Earth’s place in the galaxy and Solar System. The amount of charge channeled by the Earth will depend strictly on the amount of charge channeled through it by the Solar System in our corner of the galaxy.

Speed of light in a medium eh? I think I can give you a reasonable guess. Photon’s travel at c, that never changes, even inside the medium. You however, do not. How do you perceive light speed photons? You cannot, you may only view changes wrought by photon collisions, usually by means generated and received in that medium. So yes, any perceived signal depends on photon collisions. I believe the apparent slowdown is due to the time it takes the photon collision based signal to charge the medium, register photon collisions, then reflect collision rate changes within that medium. A Signal theory based on photon collisions and re-radiations saturating the medium. EMF examples abound.

I don’t recall Miles having talked about sound yet. Cr6 and I were on the subject lately. Feel free to critique anything I say. In the air, we can detect the presence or changes of mechanical energy – say two hands clapping - as the total number and spectra of atomic vibrations in the air around us, known as sound. The atomic vibrations themselves result from the presence and changes in the degree and number of photon collisions atoms receive from the emission fields of their neighbors within their local environ, composed of many overlapping emission fields. It takes time and many photon collisions for sound frequencies to emerge, a limitation imposed by the air medium, and our ability to detect changes within that medium, note that the photon has not slowed down.

Miles wrote. The nucleus is a big spinning engine, made up of many smaller fans, and it creates a real photon wind via a real and classical mechanics.
Lloyd wrote. What's a little hard to believe is that photons are the fuel for these engines & fans & they're also the output, which is fuel for the next (or the same) engines and fans. How can fuel power an infinite series of engines & fans without being exhausted? Or do the photons gradually lose energy, as in the Compton effect?
Airman. There is a real photon charge density differential between the poles and equator. Outside photons colliding with the particle are generally met with a light speed boundary when meeting a charged particle’s spinning equator, the charged particle’s photon emissions there are enough to drive off other charged particles; however, the least photon emission is at the charged particle’s poles, allowing incoming photons direct passage into the charged particle. That differential is what drives photon circulation through the charged particle. The charged particle is reacting to incoming photons, it will align to charge sources creating an emission plane orthogonal to the source photons.  

Lloyd wrote. Does anyone know what Miles means by "visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength"? I mean how exactly are the IR photons spun up?
Airman. I think I do, consider the example of the Arabian definition of dawn. We have two threads, white or black, at night they look the same. Dawn is the moment when the visible wavelengths of light spin up the atoms of the threads enough to see the difference between the black or white threads photon emission fields. Different tuning (black or white) only becomes apparent when there is sufficient visible light to  allows us to discern the physical color difference.  

Cr6 and Nevyn both recently called attention to the fact that atoms, especially Carbon, have a wider variety of forms in response to varying charge channeling conditions than we had previously imagined.

Lloyd wrote. Do you all agree that lasers and even spotlights or flashlights are proof that light is ballistic photons and not waves? …
Airman. I must disagree. We use the simple notion of ballistic photons when referring to the resistive ability of the charged particle’s photon emission field. We also know that every photon is spinning, in every collision there is a spin component. In lasers and magnetic fields the spin direction is important, in spot lights or flashlights the spin direction is not important.
 
Lloyd wrote. … . If it were waves, such as sound waves, they would move out in all directions. I read long ago, maybe in the 80s, that a laser aimed at the Moon from the Earth covers an area 2 miles in diameter on the Moon. I don't know if that's still the tightest beam they can make. I wonder if it spreads out because the IR from Earth goes through Earth's surface curvature, like a lens. If so, then a tighter beam might need to be made from a long rod in space containing period I and II elements. Right?
Airman. Photons don’t bend in space, nor refract in a medium as far as I know. We see collections of photon collision events, where photons may be sent more or less coherently or in new directions.  It seems to me the tightest beam would be a single column of photons, no spreading except for the photon radius increase due to the photon’s gravity expansion.

Glad to hear from you Lloyd, I was afraid you'd given up on us.
.

Miles Mathis wrote:The nucleus is a big spinning engine, made up of many smaller fans, and it creates a real photon wind via a real and classical mechanics.

Lloyd wrote:What's a little hard to believe is that photons are the fuel for these engines & fans & they're also the output, which is fuel for the next (or the same) engines and fans. How can fuel power an infinite series of engines & fans without being exhausted? Or do the photons gradually lose energy, as in the Compton effect?

Why is that so hard to believe? All inputs become outputs. The exhaust of a car is used to expel what remains of the fuel after the engine has used it for its purposes. The fuel passes through the engine and gives it some energy, although in this case they can possibly be given energy instead. We are used to things like the internal combustion engine where the fuel is broken down to provide that energy but that is not always the case. Have a look into compressed air engines or turbines. They use the kinetic energy of the fuel rather than chemical energy by breaking bonds.

Miles Mathis wrote:Anyway, in both excitation and stimulated emission, the basic mechanism is a boost of the existing ambient charge field, already channeling through the nucleus.  When we introduce light, we are basically introducing new charge, since light and charge are the same thing: photons.  The boosted charge stream spins up the nucleus, which then spins up the entire charge stream.  In short, visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength. If the channeled charge stream already matches its wavelength, due to prior boosting, then a LASER is created.  Since the existing stream has been pre-tuned to the incoming stream, the incoming stream can pass straight through the nucleus along the main channel, south pole to north, with no stepping up or down and therefore no interference.
_The proper substance is one where the nucleus has no carousel level, (meaning group one and two elements, in the simplest analysis).
_You just want your ambient charge field to be very rich in photons and very poor in antiphotons, and that can be achieved with a strong magnetic field of the right sort.  It is fairly easy to turn antiphotons into photons (flip them over), or to exclude antiphotons.

Lloyd wrote:Does anyone know what Miles means by "visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength"? I mean how exactly are the IR photons spun up?

They are spun up because they now find themselves in a new field that has more energy that they do. The particles mingle together and have slight collisions (because they all have the same direction of motion) which averages the field. I imagine that the visible light photons get degraded a bit in the process as well. Maybe dropping a few Hz or something.

Hey Lloyd...at some point it (matter) can't be "reduced" anymore. Miles (and us in most cases) are looking at this in terms of the smallest base building block that is the photon (size, frequency, path, spin direction, looping). It never stops and never goes away yet it does impart "energy" as hits on other things (molecules, atoms, elements, electrons, protons, neutrons, other photons...).  Are you looking for a live demo of the IR wave length matching? Working with Mathis and working with the standard theory is like dating two women... you can admire both but at some point you are going to have to hold hands and kiss with one of them in public -- that's the one you are going to go with -- you can't dance with both 'cause they'll both tear you apart between them.

The new paper has a few items related to photon spin:
http://www.milesmathis.com/electron.pdf

And now we have learnt something new about the universe...

Cr6 is a 'Player'

Lloyd K wrote:What's a little hard to believe is that photons are the fuel for these engines & fans & they're also the output, which is fuel for the next (or the same) engines and fans. How can fuel power an infinite series of engines & fans without being exhausted? Or do the photons gradually lose energy, as in the Compton effect?

What you're describing is Conservation of Energy. It's one of the fundamental postulates of physics, going back well before Newton, and Miles has never argued against it except in specific situations where we're not observing the whole. He even mentions it in his latest paper on the Electron, in regards to universal symmetry:

Miles wrote:We should have expected symmetry only globally, never locally. In other words, if we sum the spin of all galaxies, we should expect a sum to zero. But since each galaxy is spinning in only one way, inside each galaxy we should have predicted a high degree of non-symmetry as regards spin.

http://milesmathis.com/electron.pdf

Lloyd K wrote:Does anyone know what Miles means by "visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength"? I mean how exactly are the IR photons spun up?

They are spun up via collisions. If there are enough visible photons in a field, they transfer some momentum and stack spins on lower, IR photons in that area. This is why some flowers seem to "glow" during the daytime much brighter than unity, but at night we don't see that glow. Nasturtiums are a prime example - they emit much more light than they are receiving. Other flowers do this as well, and this is part of how bees know to find them.

Nevyn wrote:And now we have learnt something new about the universe...

Cr6 is a 'Player'

Yep, it is all just a game Nevyn...never went full "Yo Baby" back in the day...but came close....   <-- never go full "Yo Baby" <--i.e., Quantum Physics today!

Jared Magneson wrote:
 

http://milesmathis.com/electron.pdf

Lloyd K wrote:Does anyone know what Miles means by "visible light spins up the IR photons in the ambient charge field to match its wavelength"? I mean how exactly are the IR photons spun up?

They are spun up via collisions. If there are enough visible photons in a field, they transfer some momentum and stack spins on lower, IR photons in that area. This is why some flowers seem to "glow" during the daytime much brighter than unity, but at night we don't see that glow. Nasturtiums are a prime example - they emit much more light than they are receiving. Other flowers do this as well, and this is part of how bees know to find them.

Thanks for kicking my memory on Bees and geomagnetism Jared. Very interesting finding on flowers and their radiation of glow.
A decent amount of research is coming out on how Bees basically can find their way via the Earth's charge fields:

Bees and their magnetic superpower

May 11, 2017

Physics World recently reported the discovery that honey bees appear to sense magnetic fields using particles in their bodies. The findings suggest that bees join the list of animals – including some rodents, birds and reptiles – that use the ability to detect the Earth’s magnetic field to aid navigation. In this podcast, our regular host Andrew Glester catches up with the interdisciplinary research team in Canada to find out more about its work on bee “magnetoreception”. He also visits a beekeeper in the UK to learn more about the physics underpinning bee behaviour

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2017/may/11/bees-and-their-magnetic-superpower


http://what-when-how.com/insects/magnetic-sense-insects/


Evidence also suggests that honey bees use magnetic fields in nest construction. Bees that are transferred to a new hive construct combs that are oriented in approximately the same magnetic direction as those in their old hive. In one study, bees built abnormal combs when they were exposed to magnets during construction.

Among the most spectacular and magnificent termite mounds are those of Amitermes meridionalis (Termitidae: Amitermitinae) in tropical Australia near the town of Darwin (Fig. 1). These massive tombstone-like black structures reach up to 4 m in height, and their long horizontal axes align near perfectly north—south. Similar but less perfectly oriented and shaped mounds are constructed by A. lauren-sis on the Cape York Peninsula of Australia. It is more than tempting to refer to these mound builders as “magnetic termites.”
Giant (2.3-m high) mound of the Australian "magnetic" termite Amitermes meridionalis. On the left is the east—west aspect and on the right the north— south aspect.



FIGURE 1 Giant (2.3-m high) mound of the Australian “magnetic” termite Amitermes meridionalis.  On the left is the east—west aspect and on the right the north— south aspect.

Indeed some good evidence supports this label. If a strong, permanent magnet is buried underground where a new colony starts to build, the resulting structure is misshapen and lacks clear orientation.

In addition to nest alignment, numerous studies have identified insects that align the body axis to magnetic fields. Resting termites, flies, and honey bees adopt positions aligned with the cardinal axes of a magnetic field.
Finally, orientation transfer sometimes occurs from light orientation to magnetic compass orientation. When a yellow mealworm moves away from a light source, it remembers its current magnetic compass bearing. If the directional light is turned off, the course direction is maintained with the help of the remembered magnetic compass bearing.

POSSIBLE SENSORY MECHANISMS

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain how animals sense magnetic fields. There is circumstantial but no definitive evidence in insects for two such sensory mechanisms. One type of mechanism could be based on the magnetic sensitivity of some chemical or photochemical reactions. If such reactions are linked to light reception in the eye, then changing the wavelength of ambient visible light could alter the directional orientation to the geomagnetic field. Such effects have been obtained in male Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera) as well as in some birds. A second mechanism could be based on the interaction between the geomagnetic field and intracellular, submicroscopic magnetite particles that have been found in some insects, including ants, honey bees, and monarch butterflies.

Related to Jared's post on bees above:

--------
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/flower-petals-have-blue-halos-attract-bees

Edwige Moyroud
Flower petals have ‘blue halos’ to attract bees

By Virginia MorellOct. 18, 2017 , 1:00 PM

Many wild bees prefer flowers in the violet-blue range—in part because these blossoms tend to produce high volumes of nectar. But it’s not easy for plants to produce blue flowers. Instead, a new study shows that many have evolved “blue halos” to allure bees, nanoscale structures on their petals that produce a blue glow when light hits them. The blue halo is created by tiny, irregular striations—usually lined up in parallel fashion—and is found in all major groups of flowering plants pollinated by insects, the scientists report today in Nature. They made their find by using scanning electron microscopy to examine every type of angiosperm—or flowering plant—including grasses, herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees. The size and spacing of the nanoscale structures vary greatly, yet they all generate a blue or ultraviolet (UV) scattering effect particularly noticeable to bees, which have enhanced photoreceptor activity in the blue-UV parts of the spectrum.

The scientists tested this attraction by exposing bumble bees to artificial flowers with three surfaces: smooth, iridescent, and striated to produce the blue halo. Despite the color of the flower, the bees preferred those with the blue halo. For us humans, the blue halo effect is most visible on flowers with dark pigments (like the South African Ursinia speciosa above), but not on lighter colored blooms.
Posted in:

Plants & Animals

doi:10.1126/science.aar2531