What stuff in the universe moves in a straight line?

Sorry if this is a repeat, its a theoretical question. I'm not joking here so much, I'm playing the "straight arrow" and trying to be metaphyisical a bit.
TLDR: what is actually provably without movement, or moving in a straight line???? It can be the center of a non spinning non moving photon, a spinning and moving photon, but for stacked spins and planets in orbit, it seems everything is probably moving in a curve, and moving in a straight line is relativistic to an arbitrarily chosen mathematical point in space sometimes at the "orgins" and a pure fantasy land we call mathematics. Forgetting Pi, and even mass, we can't prove straight line movement! Its the 3rdDoorman uncertainty principle, put up for review, please falsify my notions or clarify if possible, thanks a snuggleplex of snuggleplexes +(1).

The corallary is that we have only collisions, that deliver forces precisely through our center, or that and at the same time as a torque is also applied to our center. We change our center's direction of movement and spin conceivably. But we don't really know where the center is, If its moving, and if its moving in a straight line. If collision is allowed, and spinning is allowed, we have mostly curved movement. Please falsify at your earliest convenience, etc.

In the Miles's universe we have photons moving in almost every direction at once, and spinning, at all times, I think. They might form vortexes or toruses might be implied where they don't tend to be moving as often. 'They are moving toward each other, and in the opposite directions, at all times, thus photon anti-photon becomes a temporary direction of movement in space issue and that plus rotation gets us to maxwell's field equations, I guess. But no other thing moves like this, in patterns going both ways, colliding constantly. Its a unique form of movement in my experience.

Isn't the idea of movement in a straight line for any one of those photons a pure leap? At best its probabalistic, when you deal in averages in the movement of photons. The only place it seems likely, is at the center of the photon which is back to Euclid, it has extension, and so everything else after that lacks precision. AS the center becomes something other than a mathematically un-extending point, It wobbles constantly!

So anyway, the photon is spinning on itself, I don't need to know anything more, it has extension and is not a mathematical point, but its center is, and the movement of its center, is a mathematical line or curve. But its almost always a curve, and a curve I can measure only probabilistically, the only exception is to establish my center, and implement a radius or distance to another point, but it may not be another center, just something spinning. about a center. Its extremely unlikely I happen to point out of my own center, and run directly into another center of rotation. I'm dizzied.

Is there a constant for representing when its probabilistically moving in line or a curve, and really can we even measure it when a photon has extension, is probably spinning and is so small. To solve the smallness problem, I switch to the moon. If you look at its orbit, every one of its atoms is spinning about that "orbit" which is concieved of as a point inside the moon, at its "center". But I don't know where that point is, any better than I know a photon. If I do know it better, they are both probabilistic, and the moon's center is just known with some greater precison. And even if gravity turns off, suddenly only the center of the moon could be said to be moving in a straight line, and even that is provisional and relies on Euclids assumptions, and even then my straight edge and compass are too small, and for the photon too big.

Thats the tailspin I'm trapped in sometimes, HELP! I console myself by theorizing that I am centered at the origin, and all of you and everything is orbiting me :). So I go from one fantasy world to the next it seems! Arg! I need another constant, for human's lets call it H. Am I self centered, or am I just a center with a known relation to another center or the origin???? Or maybe I'm s stacked spin, and wobble against everything but a fantastical moving point, that wobbles maybe.

Dunno. I create my center, it just sort of happens to be inside my body sometimes. It happens to be a lonely sort of hard to determine point in space, so send some photons, thanks!

.
Thanks for asking 3rd doorman. I may not understand your central dilemma, but I'll try sharing some of my related thoughts.

1. Photons have a real radius and spin (with a tangential velocity at light speed). Photons may also have stacked spins – spin about a point on the photon’s surface.
2. Photons travel in straight lines (at light speed).
3. Only photons can collide.

All matter, such as electrons, neutrons and protons, are charged particles, which are created from photon stacked spins and which constantly recycle charge photons. When spinning charged particles collide, it’s actually photons which are coming into contact.

That photons travel in straight lines must be logically true by Newton’s Laws of Motion. There’s nothing smaller than the smallest spinning photons – the true charge field scale. All photons travel with both linear and angular momentum. It doesn’t matter if the photon is spinning about its geometric center (type A spin), or spinning about a point on its surface (the definition of the stacked spin), the photon moves ahead linearly – in a straight line until it is hit by another photon. There are no other “quote” “forces” to act on the photon, since all forces are comprised of photons. The possible wobble in the photon’s path doesn’t count “as a curve” until we try to determine the outcome of a specific photon/photon collisions.

Electrons (and other charged particles) are much larger than photons, and they would also also travel and spin along in a straight lines, with or without wobbles until their paths are altered by forces – photon collisions, which from our scale may result in either a straight line acceleration or a spiral path. In any case, the path traveled by a large object is determined by the charge field, which, I agree, usually curves.  

Collisions can be very complicated, since they involve exchanges between linear and angular momentum, with both normal (toward the center) and orthogonal surface (torque on the photon’s center) components. While its true that everything we perceive is the result of photon collisions, I don’t think one can say collisions are everything. We must take the exchange of energy, the individual and collective photons’ momenta into account.
.

Ok, but lets focus on the photon. Lets see that it spins on itself, on its own center. How can anything but the center be moving in a straight line? Ignore the other particles and questions that arrive as we build up a Miles Mathis model.

You can say that photons travel in a straight line. But only the center traces a straight line, every point outside the center traces a curve if the photon is spinning, traces a path perhaps like a helix, perhaps like a cycloid. Don't add in stacked spins yet, I think we know the movement gets a lot more complicated after that.

Collisions and torques, what else does a photon feel?

I'm saying ignore for the moment what speed anything is traveleing. I explicitly ignore mass and thus momentum. They are not relevant here.

If a photon feels only collisions and torques, from other photons, even before you stack spins, how does one posit that a straight line movement is anything but an extreme rarity. If the photon is moving in a straight line, but is spinning somehow, then by my geometry, only the center of rotation is actually moving in a straight line and every other part of the photon is not. That center of rotation is a ghost, we can never accurately place it by considerging only collisions and torques, there will always be the uncertainty I'm calling the 3rd doorman uncertainty principle until I can find who figured this out already, in which case I'll name it after them.

Edit: Please indulge me a bit, there is nowhere else I can realistically expect to discuss a photon with a real spin. Almost everywhere else the photon's spin is considered a pseudospin which is not relevant so much.

.
No problem 3rd doorman. This is an effort at discussion, aimed at improving understanding, not a contest to see who's right or wrong. I think we probably pretty much agree.

Photon’s have both linear and angular momenta. If a given A type spinning photon has a linear momentum along the z axis, the photon’s spinning extension – its radius, spinning in say the x and y directions create the photon’s angular momentum. From our scale, the x and y extents become negligible and the photon’s path appears as a straight line but the angular extents are not negligible with respect to the photons’ collision. They must be taken into account. Yes, absolutely, you are correct, only the geometric center of an A type spinning photon can be said to moving straight ahead in a straight line. Of course the forward traveling photon’s actual center is spinning about an axis. As you say, all the actual points within the photons describe some sort of helical paths through space. I don't see the uncertainty.

Collisions and torques, what else does a photon feel?

If feelings involves significant changes, a traveling, spinning photon doesn't feel a constant forward linear velocity, nor a constant angular velocity. Given a collision, I suppose the photon might feel the resulting changes in both its forward and spin axis directions.
.

"https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/train_wheel.shtml"

3rd doorman wrote "https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/train_wheel.shtml"

@ 3rd doorman, is this some sort of a test? I may be wrong, but here's a reply.

In A Pi Test, Miles discusses a failed pi=4 test. The main problem was using a slotted track. The slot gives the ball two rolling contact points instead of one, as in Steven Oostijk’s tube tracks. The slotted ball’s effective radius is reduced, and the ball travels less each rolling rotation similar to the Train wheel quandary. I included slotted track cycloids in my pi=4 simulation, showing that the slotted track ball needed a larger radius to travel the same distance as the tube track ball, that’s included in my posted thread here somewhere – but at the time I didn’t see that the slotted track must fail the pi=4 experiment. I also posted another long thread on the pi9 paper and gave the subject plenty more thought, I believe unequal centripetal forces between the two rolling results in some inside curve contact point sliding.

http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
PAPER UPDATE, added 2/14/21, A Pi Test. http://milesmathis.com/pi9.pdf A second reader has done more good analysis for us here, showing the effect of rolling radius.

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t638-pi-nine-pi-experiment-with-two-edge-track
.

A test? No, no test here. Just a topic I'm trying to discuss.

This thread isn't dealing with pi, or pi=4. It has to do with moving in a straight line, it does not even have to do anything else, thats why I put it in the math section.

Also the train wheel quandry is different than slotted track cycloids. The figure demonstrates a curtate trochoid, but that is only one case.

A sphere dropping, while also spinning on some axis running through its center, is the general case. In the general case, only the center is moving in a straight line, no other part of the sphere, when its spinning in some way, is moving in straight line.

.
Once again, I'd say you are correct. At the photon scale, or any scale, nothing “real” in the universe travels in a perfectly straight line. In the general case, with spin axis through the photon’s geometric center, the real photon center will remain on the straight line, but that center is spinning. Agreed, any real point within or on the photon’s surface move through space in an absolutely straight twist or helical fashion, until it collides with another photon. I don’t believe anyone else can will come up with a straighter answer.

What more can you say? Photon “feelings” didn’t add to the discussion.

Since you can't avoid the spin, its probably more rewarding to study the relationship between the photon’s light-speed forward and tangential spin velocities. As you no doubt know, Miles came up with his orbital velocity as a function of radius formula and Nevyn wrote a paper describing the time it takes for any given stacked spin to complete a single rotation. Oh no, I’m bordering on pi=4 again.
.

You are going to tell me whats "probably more rewarding" so yeah, I can take a hint.

.
That was my attempt at lighthearted discussion, not a hint.

I apologize for saying, "its probably more rewarding".
.

So the parametric equation for the helix, is noted here at youtube, Quoted
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE8NVTyESd8" Watch the first 1:45 if you can't say you are familiar with the helix, do it for its visuals of the helix up to a formula for its "curvature" whatever that means. When he talks about a space highway, you know to ignore that, just look at the helix itself, pause and then come back. if ya want, its just a helix diagram, and ignore the algebra part for now.

Then imagine that this helix is path traced out in space by a mathematical point on the surface of a dropping sphere.

From there realize that the axis of rotation of the dropping sphere is co linear with the path the center of the sphere traces out, its falling path.

to be continued. . . . when the axis of rotation is NOT co-linear with the "straight" path, all that variation . . . . in the path the mathematical point on the surface of the sphere traces out as the sphere falls.

So if the axis of rotation of the sphere is colinear with the path traced out by the center, and we track a point on the sphere that traces out a helix, all points on this axis of rotation, are moving in a straight line. Every point on the surface and inside is falling toward some reference plane, like the ground, as a unified body, at a linear velocity that is shared, at a linear accelleration that is a common component of their movement. But some are falling straight, and some are tracing out a helix as they fall.

If the axis of rotation is put off by being colinear by any amount of degrees/radians, and we track the same point, it no longer traces a helix. We can pick any other point on this not-colinear axis sphere, and none of them will trace a helix anymore. No point inside the sphere traces a helix either, or in both cases its a tilted kind of helix which I have no name or math for. But the points on the axis still appear to move in a straight line, spinning while doing so. They no longer follow the same path as the center, but all fall spinning only on themselves and not tracing out another curve. All points outside this axis trace a curve, unnamed for me so far.

If the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the apparent straight line path traced by the center of the sphere, We now see that all the points on the axis of rotation still appear to trace out a straight line, but one point will trace out a cycloid, or a stretched cycloid, another curve I have no precise name for.

So Miles mathis, when he has diagrammed the first stacked spin of the photon, I imagine it like a sphere falling, spinning about its axis that is co-linear with the straight line traced out by its center AND axis, and then I take that path, which is a straight line, and make it curve, until it curves back around on itself making the center travel a circle of the same radius as the photon. This satisfies the condition that it rotates about its own center, and then a point on the surface, also on the axis of rotation becomes a center which then can be rotated around. So at this point, it looks like if that photon with a stacked spin moves in any direction in a straight line, in fact only this new center on the surface of the photon, traces out a path that is a straight line.

to be continued. . . .