Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Best Explanation of Stacked Spins
See http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4286

I had this article in my files since 9/12/12, just a couple weeks after it was posted online apparently, but I think I hadn't read much of it till now. It describes the behavior of gyroscopes and concludes that all particles have spin and helical precession.

I think this will be a key to understanding matter and effects from charge streams and may improve simulation efforts. I hope everyone can check it out. I expect to be discussing this more here after I read it more thoroughly.

-----

I see that Cr6 and Airman are already familiar with Michael's theory to some extent. But maybe you guys didn't check it out completely, or you forgot what he said, or it didn't click etc. Airman mentioned Michael in a TB forum thread and in January 2013 Cr6 had discussion with him and others on a thread there in late 2011.

I was following that thread a little in 2011 and I copied Michael's paper, but don't remember reading it. I just read it now and I think it is very compatible with MM's model and may explain a number of things better than MM does. MV's theory of gravity seems much better than MM's and his explanation of gyro motion should explain stacked spins. MM hasn't put much of any effort into explaining the stacking, that I know of.

MV's ideas on electricity, magnetism etc seem potentially helpful too. His paper has his email address, so I'll see if I can contact him. He's no longer a member of the TB forum, so he either got banned, or he removed his membership himself. [No, he just changed his username. But he hasn't been discussing there since August.]

Does This Explain Stacked Spins of Photons?

This is from Michael's paper.

_2 The PRECESSION of GYROSCOPES
Composite bodies, i.e. atoms and atomic structures, are held together by forces acting between their component parts. So the motion of one component due to an externally applied force must be distributed through the body by its system of internal structural forces. Thus an external force applied at one point results in a lag, as the rest of the component parts receive that force via the body’s structural integrity. This motional hysteresis is inertia.

_While the disc is spinning quickly the gyroscope is able to rotate, that is, precess, about the top of the tower, even though it only rests loosely on the tower. If the precession of the gyro is prevented, then the gyro immediately falls off the tower. Somehow, both the spin and precession of the gyro are important to this seemingly inexplicable behaviour. There are a number of unusual aspects concerning this that do not conform to our everyday expectations:
- the gyroscope appears to defy gravity
- but, the spinning and stationary mass are identical
- the gyroscope precesses about its pivot point
- but, the tower is not pushed sideways.
This leads to a several important questions:
- why does the gyroscope not fall under gravity
- why does it precess
- why is the tower not pushed sideways
- why does preventing precession make it fall

_Since the tower is not pushed sideways and also there is no reduction in the gravitational mass of the system, we must conclude that by some method the spinning gyro transfers all of the force due to its gravitational mass downwards through the pivot point. The only physically possible way that the tower is not pushed sideways, is if the gravitational force belonging to the gyro is acting directly downwards through the pivot point. In some way precession is important in helping it achieve this trick.

_At any given instant, we can think of the disc as two halves with two different experiences. One half is spinning down with gravity, so experiences low inertia and acceleration. The other half is spinning up against gravity, so experiences inertia and deceleration. The result of this is an impetus which is throwing the disc upwards and in the direction of spin. This results in the gravitational force acting on the disc being applied, via the frame, through the pivot point, and also the entire disc is able to rotate about that pivot point - a motion referred to as precession.

_When the gyro is mounted in gimbal rings, we get to see something else. When a force is applied to the outer ring, the inner ring precesses. When a force is applied to the inner ring, the outer ring precesses. Viewing this in terms of the simple precession system about a tower, it can be seen that a point of force becomes a pivot point. The reason the gyro falls off the tower when precession is blocked is because a greater pivoting force is introduced that the gyro attempts to precess about. So, a pivot point is a point of force, and, a point of force becomes a pivot point, and, the greatest instantaneous force is the pivot point at any given instant.

I haven't read the article yet, only Lloyd's post above, but that sounds a lot like what I have explained on this site regarding stacked spins and how they are created. Especially the part about the pivot points. Good find, I look forward to reading the full article with the hope that it helps me to create a stacked spin simulator.

I am a bit dubious about the gravitational parts but I will wait until I have read enough to comment on that.

Thanks Lloyd.

I'd like to see if Michael's paper is right on the following?

The weight of a rapidly spinning object is focused at the main point of force on it and the object precesses around that point.

When the point of force changes, precession begins around the next main point of force.

Therefore, if a spinning photon runs into another spinning photon, both apparently may begin spinning around each other at the point of contact. If so, that may be the first stacked spin.

Lloyd,

Very nice find - Thanks. MJV has provided an extremely provocative charge field paper here; with many differences/similarities with MM.

Lloyd wrote: Therefore, if a spinning photon runs into another spinning photon, both apparently may begin spinning around each other at the point of contact. If so, that may be the first stacked spin.

You describe the first stacking, diameter equals 2. Nice thought - sounds original. It's in accord with  MJV's definition "Composite bodies, i.e. atoms and atomic structures, are held together by forces acting between their component parts". Our central multi-spin body does not need to be rigidly connected. Why did I never consider that! Does the traveling point-of-contact violate gyro action at all? The "original" spin is simply the axis spin, as manifest in the first helical path in space. Are there additional fractal-like helical spins MJV hasn't described here? i.e. cosmic spin.

I believe most of MJV's charge field is in perfect accord with MM. Helical paths due to gyro forces sounds perfectly logical.

And a new call/justification to reconsider push gravity!

I don't like proton lightspeed procession (just nitpicking). And my hair is starting to rise from his current, voltage and magnetism. I remember calling out to MJV to expand on his electricity description, but I never saw an answer, or this paper.

This is still another good paper. Thanks for sharing Michael Vaicaitis' paper - it is quite good to read:

Photons, stacked spins & the silver mean family

by Michael Howell


http://milesmathis.com/mhphoton.pdf


For photons, Mathis’ calculations indicate that mass simply equals h/cλ , where h is Planck's constant. Each stacked spin doubles the photon energy. When it comes to particles just beneath the size of the electron or larger, mass increases much faster with each stacked spin. The behavior of the sphere must be accounted for. When virtually all the energy of the particle is linear motion— E=½mv² simplifies to E=mc²—as with the normal photon. The behavior of the sphere, then, becomes negligible.

Mathis confirms that the mass increase does, in fact, snowball past a certain point
( http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html ):

The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the
electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs.
This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron

Here's the link to our last discussion, today, which covered this topic a little: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t29-weekly-discussions#556

It was between Nevyn, Cr6 and me. What I consider the main statements are underlined.

Hello Everyone. Sorry I missed yesterday. I got in late but lost the address. I’ll try to make up with a critical review of MJV’s paper.  I hope I'm fair, let me know if not.

I’m happy that Michael agrees that action-at-a-distance is absurd, and he is clearly describing a charge field. But, perhaps because of my study of Miles’ charge field, I don’t see how, “the existence of an aetheral particle field becomes a logical imperative” that can explain gravity. Michael seems certain that a single “fundamental process” can explain not just gravity, but also light and E/M. A single aethereal field Theory of Everything that can replace a single gravity field ToE.

Of course, Miles has described electrons and photons and higher matter (and between) as obeying gyroscopic rules, but my mental image of billiard ball mechanics turns out to be a poor model. Miles leaves many of the details to our imagination. Michael is making an extra effort to describe gyro forces, presumably in order to convince us that matter motion is helical. Michael insists that the greatest instantaneous force is at the forward-most point of the moving object, and that point of “force” becomes a pivot point for precession.

According to Michael, Gravity is the result of a net push provided by a uniformly random 3-D distribution of aethereal particles moving through space. Of course, the aethereal particle field is interpenetrable, and interaction with matter involves just a small fraction of aethereal particles, as is true with Miles’ charge field. The need for a uniformly random field distribution seems to be contradicted by matter distribution within our solar system as well as our galactic corner. We do not see such uniformity. Michael stated that the aethereal field is undetectable by itself, by can be only be observed by its affect upon matter. Overall, I am not satisfied by Michael’s gravity description. On the other hand, Michael has given me a better appreciation of the increased complexity represented by precession reactions at all levels of matter and he does seem to be giving legs to the idea that spin precession reactions may be part of the final description of gravity as Miles himself has speculated.

I have not yet arrived at a proper understanding of spinning objects with linear motion. I cannot believe the traveling, spinning object is described by just the simplest case where the spin axis is in line with the linear motion, such that the lead point is a spin axis pole, maximizing precession. Miles sees no “point-of-force” here, but instead, as an entry point for recycling or channeling charge. However, I do think that Michael is describing a legitimate force behavior for photons making actual contact with matter at the poles. In other spin directions, the forward point is no longer the spin axis pole, and it seems to me that those aethereal collisions will result in less precession, but more speeding up or slowing down of the object’s spin. But I don’t know. I don’t see gyroscopic forces stabilizing linear motion so easily. (I do need to take another turn at gyroscopic mechanics). On the other hand, I do see particles traveling together as Lloyd suggested (a stable kissing point between two independently spinning objects can occur where the two independent spin axis poles touch), (Nevyn, please reply). As a passing observation of Miles’ charge field – It seems to me, at times, that complex EM waveforms require extremely stable charge field directions and spin, sounds gyro-like to me.

While Michael is estimating wavelengths as a function of the precessed helical path, Miles estimates wavelength as the “linear” distance of a single object rotation, not constrained to a helical path. Helixes are just the paths of spinning objects. I can generally agree with helical motion, (and nested helixes) but at a much reduced effect. I do not see electrons in wide helical paths being a central component in describing superposition when simple spinning can explain it just as well.

Michael has begun to describe an aethereal field “recycling”, the field providing energy to create helical paths which return “charge”, in the form of momentum back to the aethereal field thus avoiding thermodynamic catastrophe. Huh? Precession is necessary to release charge back into the field. Precession, as a result of aetheral bombardment, is the single most important mechanical behaviour in nature, responsible for gravity, mass and electromagnetism. In my opinion, making precession so central to the explanation of virtually all observed forces is the weakest part of Michael’s paper. Though to be fair, I suppose that there is a little bit of precession in any given force upon spinning objects.  

I’m not ready to discuss this much further right now. The mass and E/M sections have me muttering under my breath.

I think I see precession more clearly now. I appreciate Miles’ ideas all the better for it.

OK Cr6, I'll read Howell next. After all the atomic review I'm sure it will look new. Thank You.

Stacks Doubling Mass

MJV's paper showed me that stacked spins seem to make sense, so I'm more comfortable entertaining them, but something else in his paper made me think that the increase in mass of each stack may depend on extra photons in each stack.

What he said is that the mass of the gyroscope is the same whether it is spinning or not. So it seems to me that just stacking a spin alone wouldn't increase the mass, but that a doubling of photons would also be needed. That's why I thought "kissing photons" as Airman called them might be called for.

If two photons can kiss and couple, then two couples might likewise be able to couple. And likewise on down the line, till you get particles.

Can we compare a gyroscope on a tower to two photons? The tower isn't spinning, so that's one difference. What would happen if the tower were also spinning? Either spinning with or against the gyroscope? Would there be friction if they spun against each other? The angle of precession of a gyroscope on a tower seems to vary from about 0 to 90 degrees (i.e. the angle between the tower's vertical axis and the gyroscope's axis.) Would the angle of precession between kissing photons vary by the same amount? Or do the angles have to be right?

Experiment

It looks like two photons contacting each other softly would result in both precessing around each other, as I said before. If the tower and the gyroscope were both spinning spheres, would that be able to mimic two photons? Or would it have to be done on the space station? Or could it be done on dry ice? Have a depression on a block of dry ice, put a spinning sphere on the depression, and put a second spinning sphere atop the first. Would that come close to working?

(Here's a cheap dry ice maker: https://www.google.com/shopping/product/18066498871094290751?q=dry%20ice )

Photons Absorb Photons

Cr6 said MM said: The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs. This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron

I don't think I noticed that before. Does he explain the mechanics of the absorption?

Something to keep in mind on this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number

Cr6 said MM said: The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs. This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron

This is what I was getting at in the MV chat the other day. There is the inherent mass of the BPhoton, this is real mass. This does not change no matter how many stacked spins it has or how many photons a particle absorbs. The second level of mass is caused by the stacked spins which don't actually increase the mass but increase the inertia giving the illusion of mass. The third level of mass is photon absorption which, again, does not actually increase the mass of any specific BPhoton but does increase inertia of the particle and it does increase the mass within the volume of the spinning particle, so this gives us another apparent mass increase. I could probably even say there is a fourth level of mass which is the charge emission of larger particles like electrons and protons.

To look a bit closer at these mass levels we can determine how they will appear when measured (somewhat).

Level 1: mass does not change at all. m=1.
Level 2: mass can change in both quantized and continuous fashion. Quantized on the way up and continuous on the way down. m=1+sum of spin velocities.
Level 3: mass can change in both quantized and continuous fashion, depending on the photons it is absorbing, but will always be in increments of absorbed photons. m=(1+sum of spin velocities) + N x (1+sum of spin velocities); where N is the number of absorbed photons (simplified by assuming all absorbed photons are the same).
Level 4: mass can change in a continuous fashion, depending on the photons it is emitting, but will always be in increments of the emitted photons. m=(1+sum of spin velocities) + N x (1+sum of spin velocities) + E x (1+sum of spin velocities); where E is the number of emitted photons (simplified by assuming all emitted photons are the same).

Level 1 is the true mass but levels 2 - 4 are only apparent mass and so are actually measured in mass per unit time (the time comes in from the spin velocities). Another was to see that is level 1 does not require any action or time, the measured mass will always be 1 (I am making it the quantum of mass which it logically is). However, levels 2 - 4 require some action (spin, absorption or emission) which can only happen in time so they must be measured with respect to time.

I hope that clarifies my position on mass from a Mathiseon perspective.

Now I have to go and throw that out for a while to see where Michael is coming from and how he sees mass.

2 Chat Rooms
Nevyn, would you be willing to chat with Michael this weekend one on one, while the rest of us use a separate chat room, which you could monitor, so as to include our input once in a while in your chat with Michael?

Cr6 and Airman, do you guys favor such an arrangement, at least as an experiment to help us find optimum ways to chat?

Here's chat room MM1: http://us20.chatzy.com/12181000828625

Here's chat room MM2: http://us20.chatzy.com/27985249236108

If more than one of you want to chat with Michael, would it make sense to take turns for about half an hour each during the scheduled chat time?

Mass
Did MM say that Maxwell considered mass to be L^3/T^2? That would make it a form of motion, like Dewey Larson used to contend. And it makes sense to me that mass may be motion. It's certainly a limiter of motion. Could it be negative motion at least in some cases? If 2 massless particles collide, would both go through each other and continue on their ways as if nothing happened? If one of the particles obtains mass as negative motion, would the massless particle go through it anyway? Or would it receive the negative motion from the massful particle and get repelled? Two massful particles on collision obviously change directions, meaning they exchange negative motion perhaps. Is that plausible?

LloydK wrote:2 Chat Rooms
Nevyn, would you be willing to chat with Michael this weekend one on one, while the rest of us use a separate chat room, which you could monitor, so as to include our input once in a while in your chat with Michael?

Cr6 and Airman, do you guys favor such an arrangement, at least as an experiment to help us find optimum ways to chat?

Here's chat room MM1: http://us20.chatzy.com/12181000828625

Here's chat room MM2: http://us20.chatzy.com/27985249236108

If more than one of you want to chat with Michael, would it make sense to take turns for about half an hour each during the scheduled chat time?

Sure, I can do that. It might get a bit hard watching 2 chats though so I suggest we come up with some way to highlight things you guys wanted me to ask/discuss. Just a way that I can quickly see what is important without having to sort through it all. It could be as simple as surrounding important messages with *** msg *** but only after you guys agree that it is worth asking. It won't work if everyone just starts marking messages they alone think are important.

I think it is important to give Michael the room to setup his ideas so I will try to ask for clarity when I don't have it rather than get into an 'I think this' vs 'I think that' discussion. There will always be a little bit of that, as we all have to forget what we think we know and let Michael build something else, but it is not such as easy task in practice.

Do you have a date and time for the chat? Is it the same as last week?

LloydK wrote:
Mass
Did MM say that Maxwell considered mass to be L^3/T^2? That would make it a form of motion, like Dewey Larson used to contend. And it makes sense to me that mass may be motion. It's certainly a limiter of motion. Could it be negative motion at least in some cases? If 2 massless particles collide, would both go through each other and continue on their ways as if nothing happened? If one of the particles obtains mass as negative motion, would the massless particle go through it anyway? Or would it receive the negative motion from the massful particle and get repelled? Two massful particles on collision obviously change directions, meaning they exchange negative motion perhaps. Is that plausible?

Yes, Miles has said that Maxwell did a dimensional analysis to determine that mass = L^3/T^2. This leads straight into expansion but Miles has tried to explain it using universal spin.

As my post above states, a lot of what we call mass is just motion but my level 1 mass is not motion, it is an intrinsic property of the particle. While I don't like intrinsic properties, I think there has to be something to the particle, what Newton called the ponderability of it. It is what makes it real. I don't see how 2 particles could affect each other without this intrinsic mass. I do believe that scientists have made the photon massless explicitly to avoid them being able to affect each other. So, to be explicit, I think most of what we call mass is motion but a small part of it, that which allows the rest of it to have an affect, is part of being a 'thing'.

I'm not sure what negative motion is. The only way I can interpret that is as a velocity in the opposite direction but that isn't negative motion, just a different direction. Negative motion implies a velocity pointing one way but the object moves in the opposite direction, but how does that differ from an object with a velocity pointing in the direction it does move? The point of the velocity vector is to point in the direction of motion so it doesn't seem logical to me.

Chat Plan
Yes, Nevyn, the proposed time for the chat is the same as last time. For you that's 8 a.m. on Sunday, I believe.

If I get a chance, I'll propose that some of us try out both chat rooms in advance to try to iron out potential bugs and to try your suggestion for reaching consensus on which questions or comments we most want to mention to Michael.

There may be nothing to stop us in the 2nd chat room from engaging in horse play while you guys are having serious ground-breaking discussion, but we would probably say something worthwhile on occasion.

Lloyd,

I'll be busy over the next few days off and on and will likely not be able to participate in your chats this time around.  Have a great time. --Cr6

This is from an earlier post that quoted a Mathis' paper on "How the Elements are Built"  on spin/anti-spin. You might ask MJV about how Wigner's model of electron bonding works with his model? 

I didn't see anything similar to Mathis' theory on that one.
http://milesmathis.com/wig.pdf


---


 230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT

Before we move on to the next section, I will answer a quick question. I have put most of the electrons inside the alphas so far, but in my diagram of Molybdenum, we see that we have six protons existing singly in outer holes. Where are their electrons? Once again, the electrons aren't orbiting the nucleus, and they aren't orbiting the proton, either. What the electron is orbiting here is the hole in the proton. Due to its spin, the proton has a charge minimum at both poles. One “hole” tends to attract photons, and the other tends to attract anti-photons. These charge photons are recycled by the proton, and are re-emitted at its equator. The proton, like the nucleus, is a charge-field fan-engine. Now, since I have shown (previously) that the electron is basically an overgrown photon, it is attracted to this charge minimum just like the photon, and for the same reason. But it is too big to go through the hole. So it simply circles the hole, like a ping pong ball too big to go down the drain. This gives the electron two separable angular momenta—one being its own spin about its center and the other being its spin about the hole—but neither momentum applies to a nuclear orbit. The electron is not going round the nucleus at all, as you now understand.

--------------------

When this is pointed out, the mainstream physicists hem and haw and say that they meant a full sub-shell, not shell. Argon has a full 3p sub-shell. But I have just shown you the diagram for Argon, and it matches none of that, neither regarding shells nor sub-shells. If we let the center alpha be the first shell and the carousel level be the second shell, Argon does have 2 inner shells, as we are told; but shell 2 isn't split into s and p levels. That only applies to some lower elements that aren't built like Argon (see the diagram for Oxygen, for instance). If we let the post and cap alphas be shell three, then that shell is split, but two ways, not three.

We can then explain the octet rule by recognizing that Argon's “outer” electrons are only those in the cap alphas (top and bottom). Since we have two alphas in each position, that gives us a total of 8 electrons in those two blue disks top and bottom, you see. Supposing that Argon were prone to bond, it would bond there first. The post alphas are in a more interior position, so they bond last—as we saw with Technetium. They are blocked by the carousel alphas. The carousel alphas bond almost as readily with most elements as the cap alphas, but not quite. For this reason, the cap alphas are most “outer.” They are what gives us the octet.

This means that the whole idea of “filling” levels is wrongheaded. Elements don't fill electron levels by any rules, since there are no electron levels. The levels are in the nucleus and are caused by protons. Any element “fills” itself with electrons only to match open holes or charge minima in the outer levels of the nucleus. This by itself destroys the current theory and math.



http://www.milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

In Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough,   by Nevyn on Tue Dec 23, 2014 4:40 pm, https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t65-stacked-spin-breakthrough#600

Nevyn wrote:Cr6 said MM said: The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs. This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron

This is what I was getting at in the MV chat the other day. There is the inherent mass of the BPhoton, this is real mass. This does not change no matter how many stacked spins it has or how many photons a particle absorbs. The second level of mass is caused by the stacked spins which don't actually increase the mass but increase the inertia giving the illusion of mass. The third level of mass is photon absorption which, again, does not actually increase the mass of any specific BPhoton but does increase inertia of the particle and it does increase the mass within the volume of the spinning particle, so this gives us another apparent mass increase. I could probably even say there is a fourth level of mass which is the charge emission of larger particles like electrons and protons.

To look a bit closer at these mass levels we can determine how they will appear when measured (somewhat).

Level 1: mass does not change at all. m=1.
Level 2: mass can change in both quantized and continuous fashion. Quantized on the way up and continuous on the way down. m=1+sum of spin velocities.
Level 3: mass can change in both quantized and continuous fashion, depending on the photons it is absorbing, but will always be in increments of absorbed photons. m=(1+sum of spin velocities) + N x (1+sum of spin velocities); where N is the number of absorbed photons (simplified by assuming all absorbed photons are the same).
Level 4: mass can change in a continuous fashion, depending on the photons it is emitting, but will always be in increments of the emitted photons. m=(1+sum of spin velocities) + N x (1+sum of spin velocities) + E x (1+sum of spin velocities); where E is the number of emitted photons (simplified by assuming all emitted photons are the same).

Level 1 is the true mass but levels 2 - 4 are only apparent mass and so are actually measured in mass per unit time (the time comes in from the spin velocities). Another was to see that is level 1 does not require any action or time, the measured mass will always be 1 (I am making it the quantum of mass which it logically is). However, levels 2 - 4 require some action (spin, absorption or emission) which can only happen in time so they must be measured with respect to time.

I hope that clarifies my position on mass from a Mathiseon perspective.

Nevyn, Thanks. You have clarified it very well.

You describe level 3 as photons ‘absorbed’, while level 4 is photons ‘emitted’. Both levels grow in a quantized fashion (with each individual photon), but can decease more continuously (if we allow that some spins can slow down slowly within a particle). Given that understanding, I believe your “E” term should be negative. N is then perhaps given better by:

N = I + A – E

Where the “levels” are combined. N is the total number of photons in the particle’s spin volume, (not counting the particle itself). I is the number of photons incorporated. Both A (the number of photons absorbed), and E (the number of photons emitted), change over some time interval.

Let m equal 1, the intrinsic mass, and s equal spin mass (some small binary number multiple of m; (+/-)1,(+/-)2,(+/-)4, …). Then the total mass, as you have already pretty much given is:

M(tot) = (m+s) + N x (m+s)

This situation seems to me to offer something new. Miles has given his photon spin level mass numbers. Here however, the spins define mass energy equivalence, and we can have positive or negative 'apparent' mass. The transfer of energy to/from photons within the particle volume to/from the particle itself needs to be described. It is likely that this transfer of energy alone can grow electrons out of large ‘photons’ without the need for ‘positive’ impacts.

"Level 1 is the true mass but levels 2 - 4 are only apparent mass and so are actually measured in mass per unit time."

Small point, I wouldn't be so quick to disregard the many (I + A – E) 'intrinsic' masses present within the particle's volume. The intrinsic mass grows at some root of the total mass. Total mass is limited to the presence of intrinsic mass, even within the base particle's volume.

Please let me know if I’ve gone too far in interpreting your Mathiseon perspective to conform to my own.

Airman, I was trying to get at the total mass of a particle, even including the volume beyond the actual particle with level 4. I can see why you would think that the emitted photons should be subtracted from the total because in some perspectives they are being 'lost' but in this case they are added because we are looking for a total mass which includes some of those emitted photons. This expands the volume of space we are looking at (centered on the particle itself) to include 1 unit of time worth of emission. Therefore level 4 is added to the total.

Also, to subtract level 4 assumes that the emitted photons are part of level 3 before they are emitted and that need not be the case. Level 4 photons can come from the ambient charge field. They can also come from level 3 but I imagine any lost from level 3 would be replaced by others from the ambient field so we can just assume level 4 comes from the ambient field for simplicity.

You have inspired me to treat this with a bit more respect and flesh out the equations a bit.

Level	Symbol	Equation
1	I	1
2	S	sum(spin)
3	A	j x (I + SA)
4	E	k x (I + SE)

Where:

j	=	number of absorbed photons per unit time
k	=	number of emitted photons per unit time
SA	=	sum(spin) of absorbed photons
SE	=	sum(spin) of emitted photons

This shows that the absorbed and emitted photons have their own masses. We could probably assume that absorbed and emitted photons have the same spins since they all come from the ambient field but I will leave it as-is for completeness.

Putting it all together we get M = I + S + A + E.

Michael has me intrigued with the idea that mass 'emerges' rather than being an intrinsic property. I look forward to fleshing that out in the discussions and to see how it affects this perspective of mass. From his paper, I think he states that mass (or inertia) is wrapped up in the travel time of a force as it moves across matter (which is a grouping of particles, think of MM's molecular diagrams). That is, one thing receives the force and passes it along to the next one and so on and so on. This creates a delay as the force travels across the atom (I say atom here because I can't see how this could work with only 1 particle, it needs to have individual but connected parts). Anyway, we can see where that leads once we know more about it.

Hey guys, I highly recommend looking once more at this paper:
---------
Re-assigning Boltzmann's Constant
also a re-assignment of Avogadro's constant


What I mean by that is the current solution to this problem of extending the ideal gas law to all temperatures includes various van der Waals manipulations, and none of those manipulations brings the charge field or real photons into the solution. Since they fail to do that, we know they must be fudged.

We will look more closely at those manipulations in upcoming papers, but for the time being I want to ignore the fudged solutions and try to give you the bones of a correct one. I have already written the ideal gas law as a rough charge field equation above, but we have a lot of work left to do. As usual, I will fine-tune and debug that equation not by tacking things onto it, but by making explicit the things it must already contain. In other words, I will do what I have done with dozens of other historical equations, expanding it and showing that one number must apply to more than one thing, or that one variable must be extended into two, which can then vary in more than one way.



If we raise either the density of the photons or the molecules, we have to account for the volume lost to the higher density. Since neither photons nor molecules are point particles, volume must be lost to the presence of these real particles. What is this lost volume?

VL = N2rγ + M2rM

where M is the number of molecules present. Neither one of those terms is negligible, although they are both often treated as such. So let's add that term to our equation:

p(V – VL) = Nmγc² p(V – N2rγ – M2rM ) = Nmγc²

That gets us closer to a complete equation, but I will be told I still haven't included the effects of photons on one another. We know that as energy increases, we not only get a more dense charge field, we also get higher energy photons. Photons don't come in just one energy, they come in a wide range. I haven't included that yet, have I?

Well, yes, I have, although not explicitly. That fact is included in the number N. You see, we can express the increasing energy of the photon field either as an increasing density of standard photons, or as an increasing energy of each photon. Since I have shown that real photons gain energy by stacking on new spins, thereby increasing their effective radius, this mechanism will increase energy and increase the volume occupied by the photon. So it acts to increase density, you see. Bigger photons take up more space and so they seem denser. We have a double density increase. A denser charge field causes more photon-photon edge hits, which causes more spin stacking, which gives us larger photons. We have more photons and we have bigger photons, at the same time.

How do we represent that in our equation?

Obviously, we have to expand the variable VL once again to include this extra loss of volume. If we stack a second spin on our standard charge photon, we double the radius. The photon is now spinning end-over-end. Therefore, each photon will take up twice as much space as before.
This new spin will be added all at once to the field, at some given energy level. So the equation must be quantized. Below that energy level, we won't need the new lost-volume term, but above it, we will. And there will have to be many steps represented, since the photon can stack on a third spin and so on. At a high enough energy level, the photons will become electrons, and a perfect equation should be able to represent that as well. So to start with, we must have something like this:

p(V – 2ⁿN2rγ – M2rM ) = Nmγc²

That is the simplest way to import my quantum spin equation into the gas laws. As you see, I just added a 2n to the N term, to indicate what energy level we have. If n=0, we are at the lowest photon energy level, with axial spin only. Level n=1 will indicate an x-spin or end-over-end spin. Level n=2 will indicate a y-spin, and so on.


You will say, “But that requires we know what level we are at in any experiment. We don't know that, because we don't currently know anything about expressing gas laws in terms of photons.” But if you study my equations (and previous papers), you will see we can calculate all that. Since we can measure p and V directly, and since we know rγ, mγ and c, we can back-calculate N and n. So I think this is very near a working equation. Also, you should remember that we know how to measure the energy of different light. I have equations that relate photon energy to radius, and since we can measure the energy in the experiment, we can calculate the radii of the photons present. The energy will tell us how many spins our photons have, and therefore how large they are.

http://www.milesmathis.com/boltz.pdf

Airman, I gave your post another read and wanted to touch on some things I skipped over initially.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Here however, the spins define mass energy equivalence, and we can have positive or negative 'apparent' mass.

There is no negative mass. Mass is the measure of substance, of something. It is an attempt to declare some thing from no thing in order to differentiate it from the void or space or vacuum, whatever you want to call it. It says 'this thing exists, it is real'. There is no way to have a negative mass because existence is binary, you either do or you don't. In order to remove confusion I would only call level 1 mass and levels 2 - 4 are inertia. In my post above I called level 1 the true mass and this is also why it is the unit of mass because you can either have 1 or 0, you can't have 0.5 or -1.

Even in levels 2, 3 and 4 you can't have negative mass. Level 2 is spin velocities and you can't have a negative velocity because the speed component of a velocity is the length of the vector and there is no such thing as a negative length. Level 3 is absorbed photons which again can only be absorbed or not, we can't absorb half a photon or a negative photon. Some might say a photon that was absorbed and got out is a negative photon but that is not correct in this situation because we are looking at a period of time and counting the number of photons inside the particles volume. A photon can only be inside or outside. Same with level 4 which is emission. We are counting how many photons are emitted in a given time period. There is no way it can be negative.

When talking about fundamentals, a negative value indicates that you are relative to something else. Relative to an electron, a charge photon has a negative mass but that is just a relationship between 2 things not a fundamental quantity. One thing sets the baseline and the other has a value only with respect to that baseline, it is meaningless without it.

It is the same if we define mass as the resistance to motion. You can not have a negative resistance to motion. Or to be more precise, we already do and we call it force. A negative resistance is an impetus and an impetus to motion is a force.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
The transfer of energy to/from photons within the particle volume to/from the particle itself needs to be described. It is likely that this transfer of energy alone can grow electrons out of large ‘photons’ without the need for ‘positive’ impacts.

Miles has stated that the absorbed photons can transfer energy to and take energy from the particle. I agree that more detail would be nice but I think we can figure it out fairly easily. We have our base particle which is an electron, say, let's call it E. Outside of E we have the ambient charge field which we will call C. Inside of E we have absorbed photons which we will call A. We want to look at the size of our photons so we will denote that with 's' to give us Es, As and Cs.

Es is a lot larger than Cs and must be larger than As by at least 6 spin levels, probably many more, or the absorbed photons would take up too much space and E would be destroyed. This may explain why neutrons decay but electrons and protons are very stable. Since the source of A is C, the change in size of photons will be relative to Cs. We could put them on a scale like this:

B---A_min-C-A_max--------------------------------E---P
small-----------------------------------------------large

Where B is a BPhoton.

A_min and A_max are close to C because the electron would only affect C by 1 or 2 spin levels before the photon was kicked out for being either too large or too small. If it gets smaller then it is losing mass and will be kicked out very quickly. If it gets larger then it starts to take up more space which changes the balance within E which I think would lead to the photon being emitted. If the photon were to keep getting larger then it would become powerful enough to seriously affect E. This would lead to E getting smaller while the photon gets larger. E only has to lose 1 spin level for it to lose its status as an electron. Since electrons are stable we can assume As is much smaller than Es.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
"Level 1 is the true mass but levels 2 - 4 are only apparent mass and so are actually measured in mass per unit time."

Small point, I wouldn't be so quick to disregard the many (I + A – E) 'intrinsic' masses present within the particle's volume. The intrinsic mass grows at some root of the total mass. Total mass is limited to the presence of intrinsic mass, even within the base particle's volume.

I didn't disregard the intrinsic masses, I just didn't label them with a symbol in the equations. In my original post, the equations for A and E contained a '1' which represented the intrinsic mass of these photons. That is what I meant by the intrinsic mass being the quantum or unit of mass. I could have been a lot more obvious there, sorry.

Mass is a tricky concept. It has acquired so much baggage over the years that it is barely recognizable as a fundamental quality. Attraction, bending spacetime, growing and shrinking, black holes and singularities. Forget all of that and just think about it in 2 ways. The first is as a measure of substance. An indication that 'some thing' is 'some where'. The second is as a resistance to motion. Level 1 provides the first definition of mass and level 2 provides the second.

Before the discussions with Michael, I would have said level 1 also adds to inertia but I am starting to question that. If mass is just inertia then maybe the BPhoton is massless and only its spins provide resistance to motion. It is obvious how spins, being velocities, can resist motion which is a velocity but maybe the spinless photon does not resist motion. How could a spinless photon with no linear velocity resist motion? Wouldn't resistance imply that the photon was connected to something? The only thing it could be connected to is space but that is not a thing, it is the absence of things.

I can hear Miles screaming in my head that it must have mass to transfer energy. If it doesn't resist motion then energy has been created. Say another BPhoton collides with it, if our particle does not resist motion then it will acquire the velocity from the BPhoton but the BPhoton will not lose it. How could this be? Surely that is not possible? No, there is no evidence to suggest this and a lot of evidence against it.

The only solution I have to these problems is expansion. Expansion is a velocity which explains why it can resist motion. It is a motion outwards, in every direction so it resists motion in all directions, equally. Even a motionless, spinless BPhoton would resist motion if it expands and I can't see any other way to explain that resistance without the photon being tied to something. We know it must have resistance and we know that it can not be tied to anything so I think expansion is the only solution left.

Wow. I didn't expect expansion to come into this discussion at all, even when writing the previous paragraphs, but I think I've just hit some very important points. Expansion not only explains gravity but it explains mass at the fundamental level as well. Mass doesn't cause gravity, they are both caused by the same motion. If spin velocities are also part of what we call mass then it has something that gravity doesn't and is more than just expansion, although I suspect that expansion has a part to play in forming spins as well.

Happy New Year Guys,

Cr6, It would take me a few more readings of Re-assigning Boltzmann's Constant also a re-assignment of Avogadro's constant to be able to explain it to someone else. As it is, I am fairly close to following all Miles’ steps in his description of the number of photons, their spins, protons and molecules in a volume at a given pressure. (p(V – 2nN2rγ – M2rM ) = Nmγc2/AMG). This is the sort of information that I feel is most important in understanding the mechanics of the charge field. I believe this paper (http://www.milesmathis.com/boltz.pdf) is pertinent to Lloyd’s question about Distinti. Distinti’s high mass density objects eventually breaking down to sub atomic particles despite the constant influx of ether.

Nevyn wrote: There is no negative mass.

Nevyn, Apparent mass, as I used it, is not rest mass (level 1). I intended it to be the total spin mass of levels 2-4. Thanks for pointing out that that can’t be right. But yes, I meant inertia. Can you have negative inertia? I’m using the sign, positive or negative, as the spin direction (or spin precession) and NOT rest mass equivalence, while the magnitude indicates a sort of spin coherence. No snark intended, does this sign convention violate any of the specifics you listed? I think I’m using it correctly.

Seeing inertia as gyroscopic resistance to a change in the direction of the spin axis, spin and anti-spin are parallel, with opposite precessions, which presents a direction varying inertia. Any force not affecting the spin axis direction will not experience inertial spin resistance. Hits parallel to spin and in the direction of spin will see no inertia. Edge hits upon the equator, and orthogonal to the spin axis transfer energy most efficiently. Direct spin axis pole hits parallel to the spin axis also do not experience inertial resistance. All other impacts see inertial spin resistance. Inertia here looks like an emergent property.

I assume that the particle’s inertia may be represented by a time varying function depending on the total individual photon spins, positive or negative, within each particle; that seems reasonable.

If there were exactly the same number of spins and antispins contained within the particle, and they were all spin axis parallel, what would the total particle inertial function look like? How do well structured channels of photon and antiphoton flow within a particle affect its inertia. How does the inertial function interact with the ambient pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields?

I’m currently lost in your various combinations of possible internal photon sizes (?) etc and still owe you feedback. Does this discussion indicate you've changed your particle model?

Happy New Year LTAM, Nevyn and Lloyd.

I wanted to introduce yet another paper at this point. I can't say I follow everything in it or that it is even legitimate AFAICT. It is a "classical" point of view that focuses on inertial mass. It makes a few really big claims but the ideas behind it are what are interesting in terms of rotating masses.

http://frandeaquino.org/Rotating%20Masses.pdf

New Gravitational Effects from Rotating Masses
Fran De Aquino
Copyright © 2013 by Fran De Aquino. All Rights Reserved.

Two gravitational effects related to rotating masses are described. The first is the decreasing of the gravitational mass when the rotational kinetic energy is increased. In the case of ferromagnetic materials, the effect is strongly increased and the gravitational mass can even become negative. The second is the gravitational shielding effect produced by the decreasing of the gravitational mass of the rotating mass.

Introduction

In 1918, H. Thirring [1] showed that a rotating mass shell has a weak dragging effect on the inertial frames within it. In today’s literature these results are known as Lense-Thirring effects.

Recently, the Lense-Thirring effect has received new interest because it becomes now possible to directly measure this tiny effect [2]. In the years 1959-1960 it was discovered by G. E. Pugh [3] and Leonard Schiff [4,5] that the mentioned dragging phenomenon leads to another effect - called the Schiff effect - which might be suited for experimental confirmation: The rotation axis of a gyroscope, inside a satellite orbiting the Earth, in a height of 650 km, suffers a precession of 42 milliarcseconds per year, due to the Earth’s rotation [6].

Here, we show new gravitational effects related to rotating gravitational masses, including superconducting masses.


Here's Mathis on inertial mass:
=========================

The Third Wave -  Part VII
A Redefinition of Gravity

http://milesmathis.com/third7.html

As we have seen, my theory gives matter a basic motion and a basic emission at the fundamental level, so that I have something to sum. My theory is not just words. My spherical acceleration outward of quantum particles, combined with the foundational E/M field, gives me both an apparent attraction and a real exclusion. I have shown that the atomic orbit is a combination of basic spherical acceleration, an exclusionary field caused by bombardment (the E/M field), and spin. These three phenomena logically and mechanically create an equilibrium that is capable of resisting a force at the atomic level, and summed over all atoms, they create a solid E/M latticework that is capable of resisting a force at the macro-level. In this way, the summed accelerations of matter create an E/M field, and it is this E/M field that we call the macro-object. It is the elastic strength of this field that determines the resistance to a force, and that thereby determines the mass of the object.

      In other words, the mass is not determined simply by counting up atoms. It is determined by summing the fields created by these atoms. The summed field will be at root an E/M field, and this field is the mass. In the final analysis, the field or object more strongly resists a force by being more elastic. Our cardboard box had less mass, but it is the interaction of this mass that determines the field. What we measure is not the "mass" but the "give".

     I am trying to explain mass in a non-technical and conversational manner here, but let me pause for a moment to give you links to papers where I address each facet of this complex question with a bit more rigor. In my latest paper on charge, I show that all [spinning] quanta are emitting the foundational E/M field. So it is not just the acceleration of the radius that is creating the mass or the elasticity or the ponderability; it is this bombarding or exclusionary field. This emitted field is a field of real particles, so the force that creates mass is ultimately a force of bombardment. This emitted field (which up to now has been called the charge field, and has been mediated by the virtual "messenger photon") I now call the foundational E/M field, or the B-photon field, and it has a real mass itself. This mass of the field is in fact the charge. In another recent paper, I have even found the radius of the B-photon. In my Unified Field paper I show how this field fits into Newton's gravitational equation. Since it has mass, it must do so, and it does so in a quite simple way, without any difficult math. In short, the mass variables in Newton's equation can be written as a volume times a density. The volume we give to the gravitational field; the density we give to the B-photon field. G then acts as a transform between to the two fields. In this way, mass actually becomes a compound effect. Without the emission of the foundational E/M field, we could not calculate a mass. The force of exclusion is created by this emitted field, and mass is more directly an attribute of the emitted field than it is of the gravitating particle.

      You will say that I am replacing inertial mass with some form of rigidity or impermeability, and that is mostly true. Once I replaced the idea of "ponderable mass" with the idea of a spherical acceleration and emission, all need for weight, mass, heaviness, etc. was over. We will keep these ideas because they are human feelings, just like sourness and blue and so on. But heaviness is no longer a physical parameter, not even in the form of inertial mass. You don't have to think of each atom tied to the space fabric in order to imagine inertia anymore. We already accept that acceleration causes force. If we give each atom acceleration outward, we have automatically given it a force in every direction. We no longer have to go on beyond this and continue to make up explanations like inertia or a connection to the space fabric or any of that nonsense. Some will have difficulty knocking those ideas loose from their brain, but there it is.

      The only way an atom or a proton or an electron with a spherical acceleration would not have a force in every direction is if the shell of the atom were infinitely collapsible, if it had zero rigidity. As long as it is radiating, it cannot have zero rigidity, since radiation acts as both exclusion and a sort of impermeability. Expansion and radiation therefore take the place of ponderable mass. This is a great trade, since mass has no measurable parameters, except mass itself. But rigidity can be measured as a function of radiation. It is a real mechanical property that we can easily give numbers to. Rigidity is not just a word, it is now a physical concept that can be expressed with physical variables like time and length (which give us field density). When two objects meet and one hits harder than the other, we no longer need to beg the question by giving the reductive argument that one contained more particles. We can explain the mechanics of the difference, since we can now show that more particles emit more and stronger E/M fields and these E/M fields create greater rigidity.

Thanks Cr6, I guess that shows where a lot of what I wrote above comes from. It has been a while since reading some of those early papers so I must have forgotten the source. It reminds me of something one of my math teachers said many moons ago: 'You should be proud of yourself if you discover something, even if someone else has discovered it before, because you still discovered it.'. The moment I realised above that expansion explained resistance to motion it felt really good, like a light came on in my head and I could see clearly. I do remember thinking about it when I read those papers years ago and it made sense but to put the pieces together myself was even better. A real 'Great Scott!' moment (it is always good to quote Dr Emmett Brown).

I think Miles is trying to explain what we 'measure' as mass here where-as I am trying to explain 'what' mass is at the fundamental level. The two are linked, obviously, but it seems to me that Miles does not count the stacked spins as mass except in the sense that they cause emission which is then counted as mass. So I think I am still heading into new territory here. However, the portion of mass added by the stacked spins would be both small and hard to get to in the sense that you have to overcome the emission first, then the absorbed charge and then the stacked spins, although, the absorbed charge is inside of the stacked spins so maybe you can get to the spins before them. Either way, the emission is the most obvious and measurable part of mass. The spin mass will be most pronounced in photons rather than matter and they have been mistaken for mass-less by nearly everyone. This, in the very least, shows that the intrinsic and spin mass are very small. The funny thing is that these 2 parts of mass are the only parts that charge photons have and charge photons make up the emission of the larger particles. This shows that many, many small things can have a large impact.

I'm merging the latest chat highlights (according to my impressions) with this thread to see if the two discussions can cross-pollinate.

Chat Highlights: Designer Electrons & Photons

L: Mass seems to be the name of something that modifies velocity.
N: I would say mass is that which has velocity
A: I follow the expansion angle too
N: What do you guys think would happen if 2 massless particles collided?
L: My main question about massless objects is, if they have no mass, how can they have an effect on anything?- They surely wouldn't be able to transfer energy.
N: L: Electrons aren't so much larger than large photons.
A: All I'm trying to say is that mass is supplemented by spin inertia
N: Oh, yes, he has said that they gain spin levels as they move (in a particle accelerator at least)
N: Yeah, MV's idea that mass is emergent rather than intrinsic interested me but I still have problems with it
A: As you say, above spin level three, inertia exists in all directions, but not at the same strengths
A: Consider a gyroscope, you can move it anywhere effortlessly, but you are not affecting the spin axis
- When you try to change the spin direction, you meet resistance
L: Inertia, Distinti points out, seems to be the actual item in the equations E=mc^2 and 1/2 mv^2 etc, where I substitutes for mass. Thus E=Ic^2 and 1/2 Iv^2. This explains that it's the inertia, not mass, that increases at near light speed.
L: Mass is the substance. Inertia must involve mass and a force or something.
N: - Lloyd, so inertia is the result of mass in collision?
L: What would mass be colliding with at near light speed? Photons?
N: Yes, I can agree with that, assuming mass and inertia are not the same thing.
A: Lloyd, what you're saying does kind of tie with what I'm saying. Not all mass is intrinsic
[L: MM's charge field photons are certainly the facilitator of the motion of the solar wind and comet tails and maybe electric currents etc.]
L: What did the Designer Electron paper tell us? That photons can be made to increase mass to become electrons and then transform back to photons? If so, what conditions did the experiment use to make that happen?
[That was actually not the experiment I meant to reference, but a different experiment which I refer to farther along below.]
N: The energy of the field causes the electron to gain or lose spins which transforms it up and down
L: Anyway, is it worth finding out specifically what conditions were involved in that experiment to give us clues?
L: This video mentions graphene and designer electrons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7NxWZF5NF4
L: youtube.com/watch?v=B7Nx​WZF5NF4
- It seems to say electron magnetic fields are increased from near zero to 60 Teslas.
L: They use a scanning electron microscope to help move carbon atoms to make graphene.
N: They said that they stretched the graphene to create the magnetic field (although they don't think it actually exists) which to me says they let out some of the charge inside the graphene
A: The media beneath the atom arrangement is flexible?
- I think the matter begins to distort under its own fields
L: They put the graphene on a copper crystal.
N: the scanning tunneling microscope uses a voltage to 'attract' the entity
L: At the beginning of the video they show what they say is electron bonds being broken, which makes squeaky sounds.
N: that is my interpretation
- he definitely says the squeaks 'represent' the bond breaking
A: Miles shows us how in Cr6's latest entry in the same string as mentioned before
A: The "sounds" can be resistance, inertia, like balloons
- That represents a certain number of photons stripped from the surface
- That we would only see as electrons
L: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3890&sid=c5303585a662908777d21056e088ffd8&start=30#p77476
- That's what I was thinking of initially, when I mentioned Designer Electrons, that link above.
- Here's the main point: The lowest temperature reached is half a nanoKelvin. At such temperatures atoms clump together and synchronize motions, all behaving the same way. These super cold substances can stop light in its tracks. We can stop a beam of light, or slow it down, play with it and release it again. You can stop light, turn it into an electrical signal, and then release it and turn it back into light, which has all kinds of applications in electronics.
N: I remember Miles talking about super-conductors and saying that there was very little charge present so the current had no resistance to flow
N: yes, Miles has written a paper about this slow light, probably need to read it again
L: Come on, Airman, why not go check out the labs?

I noticed on the chat a discussion of Solid Light.

It appears that Solid Light can be manipulated with Rb which has an almost unique structure-one alpha prong for the Charge Field... as does Na (sodium), perhaps this semi-solid/gas shapes photons according to different energy states(?):

- This improbable feat -- stopping light -- was accomplished by two teams. One was led by Ron Walsworth, a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the other by Lene Hau of Harvard University's Department of Physics. Walsworth's group used warm rubidium vapors to pause their laser beam; Hau's group used a super-cold sodium gas to do the same thing.
- Below: Before she managed to stop light altogether, Lene Hau and colleagues first slowed it to bicycle speeds in 1999.
- Photons -- that is, particles of light -- are massless, and that's why they can travel so fast. The Harvard researchers stopped their laser beams by "weighing the photons down."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/27mar_stoplight/



https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t51p30-mathis-chemistry-graphics#430

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium

Here's an update on how they "Weigh photons down"... that phrase is peculiar:
-----------

Before she managed to stop light altogether, Lene Hau and colleagues first slowed it to bicycle speeds in 1999. (Photo: Lene Hau)
Photons—that is, particles of light—are massless, and that's why they can travel so fast. The Harvard researchers stopped their laser beams by "weighing the photons down."
The technique requires two lasers: a "control laser" and a "signal laser." The signal laser is the one to be stopped. Using the control laser, Walsworth's team caused rubidium gas in the glass cell to become "dispersive"—in other words, the velocity of light passing through the gas depended sensitively on the color of the light. (Prisms work much the same way, although the analogy is not exact.) In such a dispersive gas, atoms and photons interact strongly, says Walsworth. "Effectively dragged down by strong interactions with atoms, the photons slowed to a crawl." Physicists call such an atom-photon system a "polariton."
Next they reduced the intensity of the signal laser until the polariton was 100% atomic. There were no photons left inside the chamber. Yet the imprint of the photons remained—on the atoms themselves. Like a child's top, atoms spin. (Physicists say they "carry angular momentum.") Information describing the fading laser pulse was stored, like a code, in the up-and-down patterns of the atoms' spin axes.

As the laser pulse enters the chamber containing the rubidium vapor, the information that defines the light becomes imprinted on the atoms' spin states (indicated by the small arrows). In the moment that the light is "stopped," only the spin states exist. This image by Tony Phillips is based on another from the American Institute of Physics.
Freeing such a stored pulse is easy: another laser beam directed through the chamber can release it. "In the near future, this technique may enable efficient, reversible mapping of quantum information between light and atoms," says Walsworth.

http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=12181

So all they really did was transfer a signal from the laser to the atoms and back again.

No stopped or even slowed photons at all.

Very sloppy wording to make it sound special.

This just looks like confirmation that photons have mass to me. If they insist that photons are mass-less then they have to explain how angular momentum is being transferred to the atoms.

Cr6 quoted: Information describing the fading laser pulse was stored, like a code, in the up-and-down patterns of the atoms' spin axes.

They mention atoms' spin axes, but they don't say that atoms actually spin, do they? Do they refer to such spin as virtual?

It looks like they are reaching for a "quantum" binary storage system for computing. (yeah...and good luck with that.... )

What they are describing appears shaped to match with quantum theory.

This article has more detail on how the "stoppage" was done.
-----------

The syrup used by Lene Hau and colleagues is a gas of several million sodium atoms, cooled to within a few millionths of a degree of absolute zero. These atoms are held in a cloud within a magnetic 'atom trap'.
Normally, the gas won't allow light to pass through it. But it can be made transparent by illuminating it with a laser beam, called the 'coupling beam'. This makes it selectively transparent -- it will allow a 'probe' laser pulse to pass through it only if the light is a certain colour.

The coupling beam is like a celebrity's bodyguard in a crowd, clearing a path through the cold gas that allows the probe beam to pass. If the bodyguard is suddenly removed -- if the coupling laser is turned off as the probe light is passing through the gas cloud -- then the probe beam stops dead in its tracks, unable to move further. This is not the same as simply turning the gas dark, so that the probe light is absorbed.

If the coupling beam is turned back on, the probe beam continues on its journey. So if information is encoded in the probe pulse -- rather as information is encoded in electrical pulses in computers -- it can be recovered moments later like a letter delayed in the mail.

The researchers anticipate that this method might find use in 'quantum computers' -- devices much faster and more powerful than present-day computers. These new machines will process information stored and transmitted in 'quantum states', such as the states of individual photons (packets of light) in a light beam. The team's technique offers a way of storing quantum information and interconverting moving and stationary data streams.

Inspired by Hau's slowing of light two years ago, Ronald Walsworth and Mikhail Lukin, also based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have carried out very similar experiments at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. Their results will be published later this month in the journal Physical Review Letters².

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/010125/full/news010125-3.html

Information in Photons

Cr6 quoted: So if information is encoded in the probe pulse [] it can be recovered moments later

Does anyone know what is meant by "information" there? I assume it's the same sort of signal that's carried in radio waves and tv signals on carrier waves, which I guess is similar to signals carried by microwaves for cell phones etc. I suppose the signals could generate holograms, since they use lasers. Or are the lasers not the carrier waves?

Speaking of carrier waves, it looks like MM hasn't discussed that anywhere yet. Does anyone have an idea how photons would carry signals of information?

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn, Apparent mass, as I used it, is not rest mass (level 1). I intended it to be the total spin mass of levels 2-4. Thanks for pointing out that that can’t be right. But yes, I meant inertia. Can you have negative inertia? I’m using the sign, positive or negative, as the spin direction (or spin precession) and NOT rest mass equivalence, while the magnitude indicates a sort of spin coherence. No snark intended, does this sign convention violate any of the specifics you listed? I think I’m using it correctly.

Seeing inertia as gyroscopic resistance to a change in the direction of the spin axis, spin and anti-spin are parallel, with opposite precessions, which presents a direction varying inertia. Any force not affecting the spin axis direction will not experience inertial spin resistance. Hits parallel to spin and in the direction of spin will see no inertia. Edge hits upon the equator, and orthogonal to the spin axis transfer energy most efficiently. Direct spin axis pole hits parallel to the spin axis also do not experience inertial resistance. All other impacts see inertial spin resistance. Inertia here looks like an emergent property.

I assume that the particle’s inertia may be represented by a time varying function depending on the total individual photon spins, positive or negative, within each particle; that seems reasonable.

I see what you are trying to do with the negative sign now but I don't think it is really negative. Not in an absolute sense. If the spin direction is in the same direction as the collision then it will appear as less mass, not negative mass (compared to some other direction). We don't need to specify the spin direction with +/- because a spin is represented by a velocity vector which already has a direction in it. +/- can only represent 1 dimension but spins happen in all directions so we need a 3D vector to represent them. Actually, we need 4 things to represent a spin: a center point, an axis, a radius and a tangential velocity. If I wanted to compress that into the smallest number of values I would put the axis and radius together such that the length of the axis is the radius but you must remember that the actual radius is orthogonal to the axis and in all directions in that plane. That gives us 3 vectors or 9 values (3x3 matrix) to represent 1 spin level.

I think it is important to realise that mass has no meaning outside of a collision. We may assume a given particle has mass when not in collision but the only way to actually know is to collide it with something else. And even knowing it, it can only be applied in a collision. This means we always have 2 particles involved, each with its own location which allows us to determine the point of collision and calculate all spins from the perspective of that point. The sum of these gives us the total motion in each dimension at that point. This is the level 2 mass. It is where the particle wants to go so the collision has to overcome that motion or add to it. In this sense you are right to call it a direction varying inertia. In some ways it is also a time varying inertia because time is used to determine where the particle is in its spin cycle.

In my opinion, everything boils down to motion so everything else is emergent. Given expansion we can even represent mass as a motion so in this way it is emergent too. This is what Miles means when he says that we can dispense with concepts like mass, inertia, etc, they all come down to motion so they are just names we give to specific motions. Even time is a motion (and I don't mean the flow of time but that time is a secondary measurement of motion that we relate to our primary measurement).

LongtimeAirman wrote:
If there were exactly the same number of spins and antispins contained within the particle, and they were all spin axis parallel, what would the total particle inertial function look like? How do well structured channels of photon and antiphoton flow within a particle affect its inertia. How does the inertial function interact with the ambient pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields?

You are correct that some spins can counteract other spins because their spin axes are parallel and their directions are opposite. However, this is not correct in an absolute sense because adjacent spin levels must be orthogonal to each other so they can not be parallel. Also, given that every spin level has a different radius, the spins themselves are not equal and will not counteract each other completely but they can at certain points in the spin cycle. Further more, again because of the different radii, the time it takes to complete a revolution is different for every spin level, the larger the radius the more time it takes to complete a revolution (since they have the same tangential velocity but a larger radius means there is more distance to travel). Therefore, the inertial function has to take into account the point of collision and calculate everything from that point, as I described above.

Photon flow through a particle is another area that needs a lot of attention but I think we need to work without that for now so that we can describe collisions without the complications they bring into it. Once we have a decent understanding of stacked spin collisions we can complicate it again.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I’m currently lost in your various combinations of possible internal photon sizes (?) etc and still owe you feedback. Does this discussion indicate you've changed your particle model?

I haven't changed my particle model so much as I am still fleshing it out. Some of the things I have posted about recently have always been in my model but I didn't mention them before. I assumed they were obvious, and that is always a dangerous assumption, or I didn't realise how prominent they were or how they connected to other things. I'm still trying to figure all of this out myself so it is all a work in progress. I've been thinking about spin velocities adding to mass for a while and these posts have let me flesh that out a little bit so things might seem to be changing but they are really just becoming more defined. Well, I guess that is change then, isn't it?

Nice post Nevyn. I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from and getting at. It looks like a good approach to define "real" hits at the photon-atom level. 

LLoyd: wrote:Does anyone know what is meant by "information" there? I assume it's the same sort of signal that's carried in radio waves and tv signals on carrier waves, which I guess is similar to signals carried by microwaves for cell phones etc. I suppose the signals could generate holograms, since they use lasers. Or are the lasers not the carrier waves?

Speaking of carrier waves, it looks like MM hasn't discussed that anywhere yet. Does anyone have an idea how photons would carry signals of information?

I think something like a "re-mapping" is needed between MM and these Slow-light laser experiments with are couched with QT definitions. I'm personally beginning to just discount most experimental outcomes in terms of strict QT if I can't find a MM quote (or the group's here) on how a physical hits in the Charge Field results in a particular outcome.  At the end of the day, MM allows another "definition" for an outcome over "Feynman" and QT and sometimes even Newtonian physics. 

Nevyn: wrote:So all they really did was transfer a signal from the laser to the atoms and back again.

No stopped or even slowed photons at all.

Very sloppy wording to make it sound special.

This just looks like confirmation that photons have mass to me. If they insist that photons are mass-less then they have to explain how angular momentum is being transferred to the atoms.

That was similar to my impression. Something was not accounted for with the Charge Field interactions. The Charge Field essentially means all photons have "velocity" and hence contribute to measures such as mass by their hits.

Mathis' recent paper kind of hints at this (he's definitely from Austin):

My Bicycle Seat as proof of the charge field

Hi all,

Contemplating a possible speed driven expandable/collapsible oct-tet (60-120deg) gear transmission (yeah right), I started looking for general images at an R Buckminster Fuller site - https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/synergetics.

I admit that I’ve made a few tensegrity models and a jitterbug or two in my day. Toys. I’ve stacked spheres (metal, magnetic, marbles, styrofoam and balloons) for projects, models and fun more times than I can recall. I came across something old, yet new. Lucite balls glued together in basic polyhedral forms. Starting from above, in the store, page 4, http://bfi.goodsie.com/page/4 http://bfi.goodsie.com/page/4



So, what! To my surprise, they spin!

Interesting first time experiences - Tetra Tops®- Tomorrow's Toy Today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IAK3vCjSkw

The History of TetraTops™, An episode of “Invent This”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIB8lFcV3GY

And a nice concise Teaching Guide -
https://www.yo-yo.com/images/forms-catalogs/tetra_tops_big.pdf

Now this isn’t the sort of thing I would normally share with you guys, but my alarm went off.

Multiple particles acting as a single body with multiple rotational axies.

Gyroscopic aggregates, with the ability to collect more particles or to contain separate spinning regions within.

IMHO, this is a valid model basis for Stacked Spins!

Airman, how are those tetratops much different from spinning jacks etc? How are they so similar to MM's model?

Lloyd wrote:Airman, how are those tetratops much different from spinning jacks etc? How are they so similar to MM's model?

Hi Lloyd, As I see it, there are two main differences.

1) All tetratops have multiple spin axii. A tetrahedron “top” comprised of four spheres, can spin on any of the four separate spin axii (through the center of gravity, and the vertex sphere contacting the table). An octohedron can spin on any of its 6 spheres. A cube, like a single die, can spin on any of its 8 corner points. Normal tops only have a single spin axis. Some jacks (like a six pointed octahedral cross) may also spin equally on any point.

2) Tetratops can stack. Though I don’t necessarily mean “add the tetrahedron to the octahedron and make a tower”. The idea here, is that as spheres are added, the aggregate created will be gaining energy by addition of real mass, changing the center of gravity, along with the spin axis. Spheres can be added which will cause the aggregate to develop the stacked spins.

The tetratops focused and reinforced my belief in aggregate photons.

Miles has said, (I’m paraphrasing) as a photon gains energy it grows more massive, increasing radius, while still capable of traveling at c.

Nevyn, (please correct me if I’m wrong), has interpreted that general statement literally, as saying that as a single photon gains energy, it is somehow physically creating mass that increases its radius.

How do you add energy to the photon?

Any additional energy must come from collisions. As with higher energy positive impacts with other photons, or even from a gentle accumulation of photons.

Consider that the charge field acts as an emission barrier, preventing direct contact between electrons and protons. A single small (axial spin alone) photon has no emission field. There is nothing to prevent gravitational accumulation of small photons without that emission field. You may believe that photons are too energetic to accumulate, but single photons have the fastest reaction masses of all matter, one small photon could not possibly shake the other loose. You may say that few photons travel paths close enough to join, but we see the most distant objects in space from such photon accumulations, sometimes at great energy (x-ray or higher). Only collisions can break photon aggregates apart.  

Of course, things get more interesting with levels 2 and 3, (axial plus two single stacked spins).

From "Photons slowed below c? Not Really", photons travel at c. They blend into the ambient field, mostly avoiding impacts by virtue of their relatively small size. They are sometimes slowed by with collisions with larger, more massive objects, but are quickly speeded back up to c by subsequent photon impacts. Photons are defined as photons by virtue of their luminal speed.

From "Unifying the Electron and Proton" we get "protons stripped of their 4 spins (axial, x, y, and z) are electrons”. As verified by his stacked-spin math. Miles has said that the same mechanism applies to photons. As in, an electron, stripped of all spins, is a photon.

Unlike level 1, level 2 and 3 photons recycle level 1, or small photon aggregates. That seems evident to me. It’s a simple question for Miles. They must recycle real photons, not just energy quanta that result in new mass totals. A complex path represented as the higher level stacked spin of a single photon has no photons to recycle. You might say that level 2 or 3 photons recycle photons from collisions, but a single photon travelling at c should have few collisions with other photons. Also, a single photon may move at c, but if it travels that complex, convoluted path, the “total” photon particle envelope cannot reach luminal speed.

Level 2 or 3 photons, as aggregates of level 1 (or 2) photons, can contain sub-aggregates with their own spins. They can spin stack, recycle, and group travel at c.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Miles has said, (I’m paraphrasing) as a photon gains energy it grows more massive, increasing radius, while still capable of traveling at c.

Nevyn, (please correct me if I’m wrong), has interpreted that general statement literally, as saying that as a single photon gains energy, it is somehow physically creating mass that increases its radius.

You are correct in my interpretation that it is a single BPhoton that gains spins. I just wanted to clarify the very last part where you said 'it is somehow physically creating mass that increases its radius'. It is the other way around. It is the increasing radius that causes the change, not the gaining of mass. It is not really gaining mass at all (if you think of mass as the intrinsic mass of a BPhoton). It is gaining size which means it is more likely to collide with other particles. This size increase allows the existing mass to be expressed more often which we measure as more mass. Remember that mass is ONLY applicable in a collision. If a particle is not in a collision then it may as well have no mass because it is irrelevant. So if we increase the rate of collision then it will appear as a larger mass only because the existing mass is being expressed more often, not because it has actually increased.

The increased radius is a strange beast. You can't just think of it as a larger sphere. It is really just a larger volume of space that you might find the BPhoton in, which I call a sphere of influence (it's not really a sphere, either). The actual particle has not changed its size, just the amount of space that it moves within. As an analogy, think of trying to move through a crowd of people at a concert. The best way to make it through is to make yourself as small as possible. Now try the same thing but hold your arms out wide. You are going to collide with many more people even though you have not increased your mass, just the amount of space you take up. Because of the larger space, you collide more often, since your real mass is being expressed in each collision, you appear to have more mass. You will travel much slower through the crowd than with your arms tucked in. To be even more precise, you should spin as you move through the crowd. When your arms are tucked in, there will be no difference (not watching where you are going aside) but when your arms are stretched out, you will sometimes make it past other people (when you arms are facing forwards and backwards) but other times you will collide with people. That is closer to the stacked spin mass increase as it takes into account that the particle can be anywhere within its sphere of influence at a given time. The sphere of influence just provides more opportunity for collisions and therefore, more opportunity to express its mass and slow it down.

In the case of a photon, it takes quite a few radius increases to get to a size that slows it down considerably.

This is a good quote from the photon.html paper:

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

I have shown that the photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton. The first question begged is, “Why isn’t there a stable particle one level below the electron?” Good question. Why don’t we find a stable particle with a mass 1/1821 that of the electron mass, which would be 5 x 10^-34 kg? If that were a photon, it would have an energy of 4.5 x 10^-17 J, and a frequency of 6.8 x 10¹⁶/s. So the answer is, we do have a stable particle at that mass equivalence: it is just an ultraviolet photon. Which means we need a further question: “Why are photons stable over a wide range of energies, while electrons and protons are not?” Well, electrons and protons are stable over a wide range of energies. They gain energy as we accelerate them, and they are stable at all these velocities, as long as they avoid collision. And, like the photons, they show an increase in wavelength as they accelerate.

Which brings up the third question begged: if that is true, then how is it that photons can vary their wavelength without changing speed? An electron has to accelerate to show a different wavelength: electrons going the same speed cannot be different “colors.” But photons can. The answer to this question is a paper in itself, but the short answer is that photons have two wavelengths. The individual photons have a wavelength that is determined by local spins, just as with the electron. These wavelengths are exceedingly short, being multiples of the photon radius. These are the wavelengths that show themselves in photon traps, and that have caused the mysteries of superposition. But the photon also shows another wavelength at the macrolevel: this wavelength is the wavelength that we see and measure in more common optical devices. The stretched wavelengths we see give us a large variation in energy and color, but the local (real) wavelengths vary by only a tiny amount. This tiny amount is insignificant as measured from our level, so it does not affect the relative energy of the photon, which is its speed.

Nevyn wrote:It is the other way around. It is the increasing radius that causes the change, not the gaining of mass. It is not really gaining mass at all (if you think of mass as the intrinsic mass of a BPhoton). It is gaining size which means it is more likely to collide with other particles. This size increase allows the existing mass to be expressed more often which we measure as more mass. Remember that mass is ONLY applicable in a collision. If a particle is not in a collision then it may as well have no mass because it is irrelevant. So if we increase the rate of collision then it will appear as a larger mass only because the existing mass is being expressed more often, not because it has actually increased.

The increased radius is a strange beast. You can't just think of it as a larger sphere. It is really just a larger volume of space that you might find the BPhoton in, which I call a sphere of influence (it's not really a sphere, either). The actual particle has not changed its size, just the amount of space that it moves within.

I agree with this description, and the motion-model we were working on previously illustrates this as well. The photon is traveling through a larger volume per Δt, and thus more likely to encounter other photons. It's not until the electron level that this becomes recursive, meaning that an ambient charge photon may bounce around inside the volume-of-influence (VOI) more than once and/or encounter other photons doing the same, inside the electron's VOI-shell.



Here is the latest, cleanest version of that motion-model video. Four spins, axial-X-Y-Z:

Stacked Spins 1-4 v6

Hey, Jared. Why don't you show those dark inner spin-level spheres for each frame of a video? Maybe give each one a different color. I think that might make the entire motion understandable easier, or maybe more perceptible. Because we viewers could focus on the motion of one spin-level sphere at a time.

How about it? Oh, I just checked out your latest video, and it looks like you took my advice before I gave it to you. Thanks.

By the way, folks, would it be helpful to have more MM fans join us on this forum? If so, maybe someone should ask MM to invite fans, not doubters, to this forum, maybe in one of his upcoming papers. Anyway, I think I'll invite members of the Miles Mathis Revolution Facebook group to join, or at least see what we have going on here.

Hey Lloyd, does this help:

X Spin: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?set1=t&set1_levels=t,t,f,f&marker=line%20groups&rec=yes

Y Spin: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?set1=t&set1_levels=t,t,t,f&marker=line%20groups&rec=yes

Z Spin: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?set1=t&set1_levels=t,t,t,t&marker=line%20groups&rec=yes

I am in the process of creating a new SpinSim that only contains 1 viewpoint, not the 4 I have been using for years. This will allow you to rotate around the particle to see it in all its 3D glory. This will have to do for now, though.

That's really cool, Nevyn. Having a much longer path/draw time on yours really shows the actual VOI shape a lot better, and reminds me a lot of those Spirograph art toys they had when I was a child.



Those were just 2D but created similar patterns. I guess my point is that on this kind of timeline, the path doesn't look unnatural at all. And from the side views your model looks like a strange oblong jellyfish creature, also not unnatural.

The Spirograph made stuff like this:

Yeah, I actually like having the 4 views of the same particle, but I am so used to it that I can read them easily. I realise now that it is a huge learning curve for everyone else so I am creating another version, this one will still exist, that will lead into the more complex views.

The VOIs do get in the way of seeing the path itself, but it is a small price to pay for the better visualisation they provide (you can turn them off in the settings).

If you look at that image of SpinSim above, you will notice a few straight line segments that don't seem to fit. That is because they don't. They are caused by switching tabs in your browser (not all of them do this) or even switching to a different application, possibly. Basically, some browsers will stop the rendering while the user is not viewing the page. This makes sense but in this case, the position of each spin level is set by time, not frame, so the markers jump from the previous position to the new one.

The Spirograph actually uses stacked spins to perform its job, but it is limited to 2 dimensions and the spins are about the same dimension, but potentially different axes (ie. locations). It doesn't follow the same rules, but it is basically a version of stacked spins.

If you want to see something cool and a bit freaky, click on the Z Spin link above and then turn off the marker limit in the settings. Watch the top-left panel and you will eventually see an alien face staring out at you. I tried using that as the icon for SpinSim but it didn't work as well as I hoped when resized down to a very small icon.

Nevyn, The alien winked at me.

Haha. I once took a screenshot of it so that I could see if it worked as an icon and the red photon just happened to be in the left eye socket. It looked pretty cool.

The path might be a little easier to conceive if the colors of the path would vary according to distance from the observer and or according to time since first formed.

Are the polar openings visible yet? Or does there need to be more spin-levels added first? Is it hard to add the next spin-levels?

I'm pretty sure the polar openings aren't really in play until the electron level, since the particle is still roughly as small as most of those around it. That is to say, the infrared b-Photon charge-average is not just four spins, but a few more than what I've been showing. So most photons are actually more complex than this, though Nevyn has that covered in his simulation much better than I do for future work. We're getting there, though!

Lloyd, in my animation the motion trail fades from yellow to orange to purple over time. It's not as clear as Nevyn's motion trails are, but it does show the volume as well as the path.

You can see what I have interpreted as the polar holes in the image Jared has posted of SpinSim above. That is a Z Spin and the bottom half of the image (with the cool pointer) is looking down the Z axis at it. The hole in the middle, which kind of looks like a wide open mouth, is where through-charge would pass through. Now, the hole is not as large as that makes it look, because the green lines represent the path, but not the size of the BPhoton. However, since it is not really a hole, that doesn't really matter. What does matter, is that when the BPhoton is moving through that area, it is moving along the Z dimension (so up towards the viewer) which could push charge in that direction, creating through-charge. When the BPhoton on moving around the outside of that green path, it could create equatorial emission.

That's how I interpret it, anyway. Everything is complicated by the linear motion, which stretches that green path out into a wave. Electrons and protons can not travel as fast as a photon though, so it does compress back up a little bit, but not really enough to form the shapes we see here.

If an electron or proton was held still, then it would form that path, but a moving particle, especially if we are talking relativistic velocities, moves more towards a wave path than a circular path. I think that would mean that a relativistic electron/proton would stop emitting charge.

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm pretty sure the polar openings aren't really in play until the electron level, since the particle is still roughly as small as most of those around it.

Correct. The model shown only contains 3 stacked spins and there is no hole. However, that same shape/path is generated for any number of spins above what is shown, so we can think of that as an electron/proton or nectron/neutron (although they have a slightly different path) if we remember that a charge photon is going to be so small that you could not see it. At that size, the hole is very large compared to a charge photon, although as I stated above, it isn't really a hole because it isn't really a shape, just a record of the path it took.

What you can read from these paths is the density of the lines. If there are a lot of lines close together then the BPhoton spends a lot of time in this area so it is going to push more charge from this area. Take note of the directions that the BPhoton is moving in these areas to judge where it might send charge photons if it collided there.

Nevyn wrote:[The photon path] isn't really a shape, just a record of the path it took. What you can read from these paths is the density of the lines. If there are a lot of lines close together then the BPhoton spends a lot of time in this area so it is going to push more charge from this area. Take note of the directions that the BPhoton is moving in these areas to judge where it might send charge photons if it collided there.

I like to compare the photon path in a particle to the path of the blades of an electric fan. The blades have relatively small volume and mass at rest, but when spinning fast the volume is effectively the entire path of the blades. A slower object that moves toward the blades will collide with them and be deflected or get beaten up.

Is it conceivable that the photon that makes up a particle could have greatly increased superluminal speed, maybe because of angular momentum? Because then it would be more similar to fan blades and it would be easier to understand how b-photons entering it could be deflected as if hitting the walls of a solid container. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine how the incoming photons would be guided to the particle's equator or poles. It seems like only a tiny fraction of incoming photons would be deflected at all. Can't this be proven with fairly simple math?

It could be considered similar to fan blades, but we don't need math to visualize it. Consider that almost every photon encountering another will have four or more stacked spins. Visualize the photons we've shown in our animations encountering other, similar-radius photons. The propensity for collisions would be roughly equal.

Now go up eight spins to the electron level. The incoming particle (which IS the photon, no need to differentiate) has a complex but rather large motion, even relative to the electron or proton, and even though it's far smaller there are far more of them since infrared is the average charge photon. It's not remotely infinitely small, "you see."

It's not that the photons need be attracted to the electron or proton, it's simply that there are so many of them. Those larger particles are already constantly "swimming" among the smaller, so they're already saturated with charge to begin with - which is how they can keep their spin momentum as well. Remember that larger particles such as the fabled (alleged) Higgs' Boson aren't stable, because they're too big and can't find equilibrium in the ambient charge field.

So to answer your last question, it doesn't really matter if only a tiny fraction of the charge photons are recycled, because 1/100th of billions is still a huge number, especially on a long enough dt (delta-time, or "change in time"). Mathis has shown that the proton recycles 19x its own mass per second in charge photons, so we know that they do collide, and often enough to create everything larger than a hydrogen atom we've ever witnessed, to keep larger atoms and molecules together, and give us the reality we perceive and interact with. If quadrillions of photons never collide or touch the proton, it's still pushing hard enough to hold reality as we know it together. According to the theory.

LloydK wrote:
Is it conceivable that the photon that makes up a particle could have greatly increased superluminal speed, maybe because of angular momentum?

No, it is not possible because we have plenty of data to the contrary. The rotation speeds of the spin levels are set by 2 things: the radius of the spin level; and the equation E=mc^2. The first gives us a size (or distance) and the second gives us a tangential velocity. I've gone over the radius side of things above, that is what all of my timing calculations are. In that, I assumed a tangential velocity, for all spin levels, of c. The reason I did that is because of E=mc^2.

***** Edit *****
In that previous paragraph, I referred to my timing calculations but I have just realised that they are not in this thread. You can see those calculations at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t213p50-proposal-electricity-animation#1579.
***** /Edit *****

That equation tells us that the energy of a particle is its mass, times by the speed of light, times by the speed of light. Why does it use the speed of light twice? And multiplied? That is a huge number. Why do we need to scale the mass so far? Where is all of this speed coming from?

Well we can see where one of those c's are coming from because any photon has a linear velocity of c. So the other c must be coming from the spin or you have to come up with another motion that can contain c without affecting the linear velocity. Since energy is expressed in a collision, we know that c is the tangential velocity of the spin level as that is what is imparted to the other photon. That is why all photons are emitted at c.

What does that tell us about the mass? It seems to me that the mass variable in that equation is hiding a lot of information. That needs to be expanded out into a more flexible form. My thoughts are that mass is the sum of the stacked spin velocities. In this particular equation we are already expressing the top level spin with one of those c's, so m is representing all spins inside of the top level. It represents what the collision is fighting against. What it has to overcome or deal with in some way. Kind of like momentum and kind of like inertia but really, it is just velocities.

LloydK wrote:
Because then it would be more similar to fan blades and it would be easier to understand how b-photons entering it could be deflected as if hitting the walls of a solid container.

You can use fan blades to visualize it but you have to take the relative speed of each fan to the next into consideration. You are assuming that all fans spin at the same speed when that is just not the case with stacked spins. Each fan spins 0.707 times by the previous fans speed. You also have to remember that you can only collide with the smallest of fans. You don't get to collide with the bigger ones, only the first. So there is no solid container.

I know it's not easy to visualize this stuff. If it was easy, we'd have nothing to argue about and how boring would life be then?