From Las Vegas, Pittsburg, Thousand Oaks to Russian Collusion and the Khashoggi assassination, false-flag hoaxes, conspoofacies, fake murders and other manufactured events are running non-stop around the world and around the corner.
A reader wrote in to suggest opening a comment section devoted to discussing current (faked) events. I thought it was a good idea and would provide a place where people could chime in on what’s going on in the news and even offer evidence for why they think the event was faked, hoaxed, manufactured, etc. (or why not). Have at it, unless you think it’s a waste of your time–in which case, don’t!
From the Daily Mail:
‘The veteran, named only as ‘Soldier F’, is one of 17 former members of the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment who were investigated over the notorious shootings at a riot in Londonderry in 1972. Sixteen other veterans will not face action following a controversial probe into the unit who went into the Bogside estate 47 years ago.’
(Bloody Sunday inquiries costing over 200 million by Lord Saville, what a racket.)
I was watching some bands who appeared on an old TV music show called Revolver which was hosted by Peter Cook on youtube and this guy caught my eye, the leader singer of The Lurkers, who has more than a passing resemblance to a certain Paul Macartney:
LikeLike
Wrong link, playlist$ seem to do this, here we go again:
LikeLike
Uncanny, like Obama’s mam, the eyes have it. The song is Ramonesque 4 chord ditty, and the former singer’s name is Howard Wall. At freebmd.org.uk we have a Howard A Wall, mother’s name Bruce (as in Robert the Bruce?)
LikeLike
How’ard A Wall.
Well wall’s are pretty hard actually!
Made up name? Pun?
LikeLike
Miles has a new PDF up on Stephen Colbert!
LikeLike
COLBERT.
I just read the first 3 paragraphs, where Miles says Colbert claims to be Catholic and is a minister of Universal Life Church which he says no real Catholic would join. I got minister credentials from ULC about 17 years ago and I don’t have a problem with it. I do have a problem with most Christian religions, including Catholicism. They’re mostly not faithful to Jesus’ principles, but have incorporated a lot of paganism into them. Christianity was correct for the first 3 centuries, but then the Romans took it over and paganized it and added beliefs about eternal hell as damnation for lack of “faith”, but “faith” really meant “faithfulness”, which they never had. I was raised Catholic, but abandoned that fraud when I was almost 20. ULC is much better than most Christian religions. The belief in eternal hell drives a lot of conventional Christians crazy.
LikeLike
COLBERT.
Miles said “Order is kept by maintaining the vast majority in an airtight theater of lies,” etc. Does it do us any good to know the truth, if nothing can be done about it? Is it absolutely certain that the situation is hopeless? If they have total control, why do they allow these truth websites to persist? I think their has to be considerable division in their ranks.
LikeLike
(Oops. I don’t usually say “their” for “there”. I’m embarrassed, slightly.)
LikeLike
“They’re” not “their”! No wait, that’s not right either 😉
The pitfalls of English.
LikeLike
L_Kinder said: “Does it do us any good to know the truth, if nothing can be done about it? Is it absolutely certain that the situation is hopeless?”
♫Do you live like the past is a god?
Well I live like the future is dead and lost!
Like the future is DEAD, like the future is LOST…♪
↑ Pretty much my mantra these days. But while it seems dark and brutal and full of hate, I’m really not. To me the truth absolutely does us good, and nothing BUT good. To learn more about history, to piece together the puzzle and flesh out the story of, “How we became this way”, is the most important thing we can do right now. The further we get, the more unraveling that gets done and spread among intelligent folk, the more folk who will awake. When enough intelligent free folk awake, I think things will reach a tipping point where we can simply boycott all the bullshit, and disembowel the Tyrants’ power over us.
♫And find… where the Power lies,
Ride! By the starlight, and know why…
You could never relate to the world. You could never RELY.
You can sever the state from the land, but not the day from the night…
Not the sound from the site…♪*
L_Kinder said: “If they have total control, why do they allow these truth websites to persist? I think their has to be considerable division in their ranks.”
They do not have total control – only a semblance of it. But sites like this persist because they BELIEVE they have total control and don’t care if there are 50 dissenters ranting about the truth. Or 50,000. We don’t matter to them as a matter of strategy – since MOST people are fucking stupid as shit and will never break free, will never wake up. Most people can’t even count to two.
But I agree there has to be considerable division amongst them. The more we look, the less cohesion I see. They basically use the financial system as their source of power but have no apparent goals in the long run, other than to steal as much as they can from as many people (slaves, serfs) as they can. It’s not exactly a sustainable plot. The Earth has finite resources and as we’ve seen, their attempts at space travel have amounted to jack shit too.
*Some lyrics from a couple of my favorite Darkest Hour (the band) songs. As Metal as they are, theirs is actually a message of light and hope. Not for everyone but for me it’s really good stuff, very uplifting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
COLBERT.
Miles discussed Bush’s and Busch’s (I like to use apostrophes for names so as to make the correct spelling obvious; otherwise, it’s often hard to tell if the plural of a name is meant, or if the “s” or “es” is part of the name). My g-g-grandfather John Kinder (Johannes Gu”nther) married Caroline Bush (Karliene? Busch). They came from central Germany west of Go”ttingen, the former from Uslar, the latter from Lichtenborn. Busch in German means bush in English. Some surnames came from local features, like woods, hills, streams. So Busch seems to come from bushes, maybe shrubs near a woods.[?] Webster Tarpley said that Hitler’s body guard claimed that George Bush Sr was really a Schurtleff or something like that, who was a young Nazi from Germany. So his Dad Prescott was supposedly his step-Dad or whatever. At any rate, I got in contact with an apparent cousin about a decade ago, named Michael Busch who was the mayor of Lichtenborn then. He gave me info on the family tree that went back to about 1646, as I recall. I provided him with the American side. But I lost touch. I don’t know of any connection to the famous Bush’s or Busch’s. A local relative said one of her Bush relatives, very probably related to us, fought against Napoleon in 1815 before coming to the U.S. A lot of Germans were settling in the Missouri valley (starting around 1820) when my German ancestors came to this Illinois county about ten miles from the MO river. A lot of them traveled by steamboat on the rivers. Anyway, I don’t know of any Jewish blood in our family tree. I doubt if there is any.
LikeLike
Roman Catholicism? It works for me. If you can get over the massive direct and indirect Hollywood attacks on religious faith of all kinds and open your heart and mind to ANY religion I think you would be benefited though not in any ways that could be measured out like candy or money or prescription drugs. If life gives you some rough knocks and you gotta choose between a slippery slope to prescription drugs and/or satanism and/or gross materialism and say, the Catholic Church for comfort I think you would find your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry and/or Hollywood and/or soft or hard Satanism a bad choice and developing faith in God the better choice. I bet the statistics would bear out the idea that people that choose faith over drugs end up far healthier and less depressed in the long run too! Who would do such a study though. Not the pharmaceutical industry. I suspect.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That guy could be a first cousin of Orson Welles. We should start a game SECRET HOLLYWOOD FIRST COUSINS! Vince Vaughn looks a heck of a lot like the guy in the original 3:10 to Yuma. Probably his secret uncle. Or dad! Does anybody on this site know of who any of their 8th or 9th cousins might be? Not me. Maybe Miles should do a Geneology for Dummies for those of us befuddled by the ancestry data sometimes!
LikeLike
My point was the boat crypto-meme ,
quick search for celebs and their boats :
” The Top 20 Celebrity Yachts in The World
Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton’s 47.8 meter super yacht, the Va Bene, is a beautiful sailing vessel that can host up to 12 guests and allows for 13 crew members. …
Steven Spielberg. …
Bono. …
Tiger Woods. …
Johnny Depp. …
Nicole Kidman. …
Leonardo DiCaprio. …
Nicolas Cage……”
LikeLike
Miles’ new science paper is a brief retort to Scientific American’s “Sound by the Pound…” fake ‘phonon’ dodge. Rather de-‘light’ful. If I thought Miles was difficult reading, this brand of fudging is incomprehensible, which may be its point; or as Miles delightfully jokes: a Betty Crocker fudge particle, this phonon, which does anything it wants to.
The real crime here is not acknowledging sources; that’s grand theft larceny in the first degree. The punishment for grand larceny used to be death; now it is cause for promotion and selling of magazines.
This is what gave me a charge: “by definition, sound waves are just patterns in a field. Patterns in a field can’t have mass [Bye, bye Miss American Pie]. What has mass is the field itself, which is made up of real charge. Sound is then a pattern in that field.” I think I recognize a pattern here which is stirring a few brain cells: a photon field with mass; now that’s heavy.
Real charge feels good. What intrigues me is ‘patterns in a field.’ Or in Mathis metalanguage: “Yes, sound can still be thought of as waves in the molecular (air) field; but with charge, sound also has to be considered as a wave in the charge field. The charge field is the fundamental field here, not the molecular field. The molecular field is driven and created by the charge field, so charge
can never be ignored.”
So photons actually wave?; makes them seem human somehow. I think it was Jared who drew animations of photons spinning, bumping and grinding with their stacks or concentric hovering circles at angles that produced waves, or something like that.
Now what comes to mind is what came first; the chicken or egg–the wave or the field? Or are they reciprocal? Answer one question and nine more arrive. A Field of Dreams: build it and they will come, photons, muses and all.
LikeLike
Miles has detailed the wave/frequency corrections really well over the years, so I’d suggest digging through those papers. But yes, I attempted to animate the effects he’s theorized, though I fear my animation style/quality is still very rough at this point.
The photon’s “wave” is simply an observation of repetition in a photon’s path. As it moves linearly, it’s traveling along its various nested spin-paths (for any photon with more than one spin, obviously), and as it moves through space if one were to track this spin motion the photon would repeat its spins and return to various positions over time – relative to its linear motion, which is of course light speed. Nevyn has diagrammed this without linear motion very well and I believe this spin_sim to be accurate, moreso than my own if anything:
And viewed from one side:
You can also see this motion in my latest video attempting to illustrate two infrared photons colliding. The first half of the video is from an outside observer; the second half is the same exact scene replayed, except I attached a camera to the second (right side) photon to “follow” it as the two move closer together. They aren’t quite photon/anti-photon but I’ll do that one next, and as usual any mistakes in my understanding of Miles’ theory are mine alone. He may not have seen these yet and they might be wrong or “off”, so take it with a dash of salt. The “ghost” trails show the spin paths and linear motion, the solid red spheres are the current locations of our actual B-photons themselves:
LikeLike
These visualizations are always very interesting. A question that always occurs to me though is what exactly tethers the photon to the center of its spin path? It always moves along that spin path like a moon orbiting a planet, except there is no planet or anything in the middle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie:
I think it’s inertia? Like a gyroscope or spun cycle wheel, they are both highly reluctant to change course unless acted upon by an outside force.
A gyroscope pole when tilted will follow a circular path, just like the precession of the Earth’s poles and will keep doing that until friction overcomes it’s spin.
What boggles my cerebral vacuum is how does the photon keep spinning….effectively perpetual motion. I can’t remember Miles superb explanation. Something along the lines of, it’s spin causes it’s speed and it’s speed causes it’s spin. So they are both properties of it’s existence….erm….I think! Help!
Jared:
“The particle is what “came first”, though delving where or how it came to be originally is beyond us all.”
I see that as the ultimate mindfeck! This sea of photons always having existed and infinite in extent. Like….WOW!
That, for me, beats all the black hole, worm hole, big bang, 10 dimensional, multiverse gobbledegook.
Or maybe God did it?
Aren’t we lucky to be here thinking about this shit?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s more like Russell says. The photon with multiple stacked spins doesn’t KNOW it has a “center” – we only perceive the center since we are tracking its motion with these types of simulations and animations. A real photon doesn’t have a “motion-center”. It simply moves through its spins, wobbles, and tumbles. Often we (when I say “we” I mean mostly myself and Nevyn, using Miles’ theory as best we can, and often with his help or input) SHOW the photon’s spin motions without the linear velocity at light speed simply so we can show how they move and better analyze the accuracy of the simulation. Find problems. Fix them. Now when you apply that linear velocity, which of course in reality is ALWAYS happening, the photon’s path stretches out so fast and so far that the spinning motions almost get lost. So it’s harder to track them and show how things are moving, and harder to spot errors. It’s easier to apply the linear motion AFTER the stacked spin math is working properly, if that makes sense.
So to answer you, Ollie, there is no “tether” and nothing like an “orbit” at the photon or even nucleon levels (proton, neutron, electron). It’s only an artifact of my simulation style and I’m glad you brought it up, so we could clarify. Remember, even a proton or neutron here on Earth is traveling at great velocity through the charge field – because the Earth is moving very fast, both in its orbit of the sun and in the solar system’s orbit of the galaxy. So even a single proton or neutron doesn’t really have a static shape, except relative to other nearby protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules.
If we track the Earth’s motion along with its velocity, it looks like a long, spiraling path as well, and you almost completely miss the inter-system dynamics:
Ignore all the dialogue and music and text in that video. And it’s probably not super-accurate (I didn’t make it) but that might help illustrate this point a bit as well.
LikeLike
Russel:
As you can see, a spinning top in zero-g experiences almost no friction and keeps spinning indefinitely. (until it hits something, but photon mostly only hit photons, so it averages out) But it also doesn’t describe a circular path as a spinning top on the ground would. So this quasi-orbital movement around a phantom-center of gravity still confuses me. I always pictured the multi-axis spins like a multi-axis trainer.
But that wouldn’t allow for larger radii for stacked spins.
LikeLike
Zero g gyroscope wow! Didn’t think at that angle so thanks for the hint Ollie.
Another total weirdness is the fact that the photon – or proton – is just energy. It’s actual composition being…..energy. It’s the smallest bit of matter so it can’t be made from anything else.
Everything is made from photons at some stage in their evolution, and every particle is energy. So the entire universe is just a massive, unending blob of energy, which is made of teensy weensy photons…..mostly…..95%, the rest being higher level particles.
And lots and lots and lots of space!
I guess it’s rather clever of the writers of some sci-fi movies where they show a human dissolving into energy as they die or drift up to heaven or go through a time machine or whatever. They always seem to show – even Star Trek – a body turning into bright sparkly lights. At the atomic level I suppose this is very accurate. We are indeed made from light. I’m sure I’m quoting Miles there….or Sagan or Feynman.
LikeLike
Ollie:
Also, that’s a good description from Jared, because it’s so difficult to fit the wobbles and spins together as it is, without the need to then extrapolate those spins out at light speed. I think extrapolate is the right word. The off axis wobble is so tiny that at light speed it really is almost invisible as a physical wobble, yet is measurable by observing the frequency of the light….spectrum(?).
Shit! I think I’m finally getting this!
Then again …. oh dear … they are spinning incredibly quickly….but a single revolution of the particles circumference is such a minute distance that I think my description above still applies.
LikeLike
Note that I wrote my reply to Russel before I saw Jared’s post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s okay, Ollie, and I appreciate your honest questions. I’m often awaiting Miles at any point to step in and tell me to shut up and correct my shit at any/every point, and maybe he just doesn’t have time but I’m doing the best I can and to be fair he’s given us plenty to go from and I don’t expect any additional effort from him. He probably thinks I’m some kind of asshole and that wouldn’t be inaccurate.
That said, the tools of my trade give me a unique capability in this regard and I’m constantly trying to refine them and make the best visuals I can. If you have any questions you think deserve a special visual treatment I’ll do my best to answer them – not just because you may or may not deserve those answers, but also because it helps me to refine MY understanding of his theories as well as the usage of Maya in these efforts. Short of programming tools ourselves (as Nevyn does), it’s quite blatantly the most powerful tool in existence for this stuff and I struggle to make it do what we we want but that’s the gig. Maya is an absolute bitch. I happen to like bitches so here we are.
Meanwhile if you want more depth or wish to join us on the deeper points of this stuff, please join us at the unofficial Mathisian Physics forum as well. Josh introduced me to a few great people a few years back now and we’ve made great progress in diagramming Miles’ theories, as well as adding to them when possible. All his physics stuff gets discussed much more in depth there and we delve in as far as we can go. Another mind on the tasks would be very welcome; we’re few and fallible but also dedicated, and Nevyn and the others are devastating too. It’s really good stuff. Josh did me right introducing these folks to me and there’s no spookery to worry about there:
http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/forum
Regarding Miles’ recent charge-gravity theories themselves, if you need a quick link:
http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t543-the-cause-of-gravity-the-next-major-chapter
There, we bash around ideas mostly and make simulations and vids when we can. Miles isn’t present at all (though he’s very, VERY welcome to) but I like to think we’re doing him right and studying his works honestly and openly there. As usual, I may be wrong on many or any points. It’s just a different place to discuss his physics and in my opinion the best place to dig in. For the record, thus far the only theory of his we’re still actually arguing about is his recent charge-gravity one, which I’m slowly coming around to but still need to diagram. My problem, not his.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said: “Another total weirdness is the fact that the photon – or proton – is just energy. It’s actual composition being…..energy.”
I disagree. That’s not a “fact” at all. What IS energy? Energy is mass in motion:
E=mc²
Energy is mass moving at the speed of light linearly and the speed of light tangentially, due to spin. Miles has unraveled that for us as well – that’s why we use “c²”.
Energy is the propensity for a collision to transfer momentum. Energy is NOT the physical object (photon) itself, as you can see since it has the mass variable AND the dual velocity variables. This is also why you cannot have negative energy – you can’t have a negative mass OR a negative velocity in that equation, ever. No mass, no energy. No velocity, no energy.
I do agree that the photon is the smallest particle we’re aware of, but what it’s made of or how it came to exist is beyond me. As the universal quanta, it’s allegedly not MADE of anything. It just is. But that’s as far as I get and it’s good enough to proceed from, as a postulate.
LikeLike
“it’s allegedly not MADE of anything”
Apology’s for using the word ‘fact’….not good!
Dude….I have a headache!
It has to be made from something….otherwise it’s nothing, which is the opposite of something.
Miles has said that charge photons are electrical energy in a circuit, and heat in just about every other scenario. They also make up matter when they collide and gain spins.
In that respect, making matter from nothing is like a story from the Old Testament.
Or even worse, the Big Bang mystery tour.
I know from reading Bill Beaty’s logic that electrical energy is thought of as just a concept “because it’s not stuff”. You can’t just say what it is, only measure it’s effects and use it’s abilities.
But in the case of these charge photon’s which, by the way, are able to collide, travel at c, bounce off one another, they must have some sort of property other than just potential energy. If charge photons aren’t made from anything then what is rotating – what is spinning?
What I’m suggesting is that the non-stuff which Mr Beaty thinks of as ‘not stuff’ must be some kind of stuff, otherwise it couldn’t spin, accelerate, collide with, add a spin to other particles. So I am proposing that the charge photon is the base state of the non-stuff we refer to as energy. In my mind the tiny spinning packet of energy has substance. If energy really is just observed movement, accelerations and heat, then what the feck am I made of?
Am I just a concept? I’ve been called worse things!
As far as I’m aware, Bill doesn’t know of the existence of charge photons but accepts that electrical energy flows across a circuit at light speed, so he’s almost there.
We need a group think here….what the feck is a charge photon made from?
Come on people, let’s make history!
Miles……HELP!
LikeLike
It seems to me, the charge photon isn’t made of anything, because it’s a postulate. If you assume or pretend it exists, then you can explain a lot of things. Not everything, though; you never can explain everything.
I think physics is or should be mechanics, and mechanics is useful, because understandable. It’s never complete though, since being is not a machine.
Miles’ theoretical proposals about charge photons and charge fields, accomplish much that is remarkably exact and specific. They predict observed values of masses and sizes of atomic particles, explain charge, correct the understanding of gravitation, and that’s just a little of the list; they predict or explain many more observed phenomena and relationships, on micro and macro scales.
But I guess we can’t help pushing at boundaries, so we ask, “Well, what are the little boogers made of, anyway?” Sort of like how Einstein’s curved space always had me asking, “So what is it curved IN?” I never liked being told that wasn’t a valid question. What does curved mean, if you can’t answer that?
So to push at the edges of the theory and hope to extend it, I wonder if another way to put the question is, “What do we mean, when we say ‘charge photon’?” Are we proposing something like, “Let’s assume there are lots of tiny pushes, every which way; how would they organized themselves?” And, “By golly, is that what we’re seeing here?”
LikeLike
Garrett:
So you are saying that the photons may be just perturbations in an EM field?
And those perturbations behave in ways which appear to an observer like wobbles and spins? Like physical entities? So what does physical really mean?
So when the mainstream fizzycists say that we live in a hologram and nothing solid really exists, they are not far off the truth of it?
It isn’t a thing, and it’s not ‘stuff’, it just is….. I can’t deal with this…..
This is almost verging on the spiritual!
If I go any further down this line of thought I may end up believing in Gods.
So this is why a photon seems to be both a particle and a wave? Because it is neither, it just appears that way to an observer? I thought Miles would leave me a universe full of pool ball mechanics and simplicity. After today, I’m left thinking that nothing is real – not in the way we previously understood it to be – and physicality is just a concept.
It really is like we are living in a dream.
With the photon being a physical entity I can, to some extent, begin to understand the charge field; ‘field’ being the operative word here. But a field has no mass. Charge field. Charge photons. Charge photons gain spins, become protons. Protons have mass.
Can you see my problem?
So the universe is a huge EM field with an infinite number of these micro-perturbations, which manifest as particles/matter.
The world is gonna look very strange when I walk outside tomorrow morning.
Holy crap. I just thought about melding these thoughts with Miles latest gravity paper.
Yesterday I thought I was beginning to understand that gravity/charge bonding.
No I’m not!
I’m off to kill some Orks and give my brain a rest.
Thanks for your reply Garrett. It’s certainly given me more to think about…..not necessarily a good thing.
Photons are EM field eddies which have a velocity c…???
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said: “Miles has said that charge photons are electrical energy in a circuit, and heat in just about every other scenario. ”
No, actually Miles’ theory says that electricity and magnetism are CAUSED by photons. They are not electrical energy – they are photons, which cause electricity by moving through matter through its poles, through its spin-axis directions. They cause magnetism by moving out around the equator while spinning more one direction or the other.
Russell Taylor said (to Garrett): “So you are saying that the photons may be just perturbations in an EM field?”
I don’t think he was saying that – and it’s also false. Photons CAUSE the E/M field, and underly it. But charge isn’t E/M – it’s photons. Electromagnetic effects are effects we see upon larger matter (ions, nucleons) which are caused by photons streaming axially or emitting radially.
Here’s an excellent animated 3D app that Nevyn wrote to show how magnetism works, at the proton level:
https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/ProtonViewer/ProtonViewer.html
An inverted screenshot:
Russell Taylor said: “So this is why a photon seems to be both a particle and a wave?”
No. It’s a particle, by definition of particle. Its motion is observable as a wave. I hit this again with dennisjoyleary in this thread below, do a quick search or scroll and you should find it, including my latest videos and links to Miles where applicable.
LikeLike
Russell,
No, I didn’t mean to suggest a photon is just perturbations. (But it’s an interesting notion, if we can explain how the perturbations would behave the way the photons seem to behave.) Wave motion from spin requires something with inertia, as you were saying above. I appreciate your explanations and your wrestling with the confusion. Tomorrow I plan to reread more closely, your comments and Jared’s above, and probably learn a lot.
I was trying to pose a general, essentialist question: “What is it?” More a philosophy-of-science approach, than any specific insight about the photons.
Thinking of particles, I tend to picture little billiard balls, things made of stuff, then wonder what’s right and what’s wrong with that model. Newton talked about the intuition of mass as something ponderous. We may tend to feel that mass must represent some definite stuff, because we directly feel mass, its weight and its momentum or inertia. But in Miles’ understanding of stacked spins, a particle gains mass (as well as size) without adding any stuff. Right? It adds motion, in an additional dimension. It is the particle’s movement that becomes more ponderous. And the movement ends up explaining the phenomena we associate with mass, because the more complex movement is harder to deflect. Am I getting it right?
LikeLike
Garrett:
“But in Miles’ understanding of stacked spins, a particle gains mass (as well as size) without adding any stuff. Right?”
My grey matter is getting well and truly fricassée’d here.
Yes you are right. Jared just explained to me how the particles stay discreet and don’t join up making double particles. They lose or gain spins but as you say the actual particle doesn’t change, it just starts along a more complex path due to added spins.
This is really helpful thinking of all the photons remaining single particles.
The original particle with no spin is just as interesting, because it seems to be able to exist without any spin whatsoever, yet still posses perpetual motion through space.
We just need a way to detect (see) charge photons without spin – the ones hopefully on uninterrupted paths across the cosmos – then we should be able to see out to vastly greater distances. What was it Miles said about red-shift? To my reckoning, you can’t red-shift a photon with no spin, as it isn’t waving….therefore, detect the unwaving photons and see much further. The photons with no spin – if they have been lucky enough not to have collided along the way – could have travelled a trillion light years without change.
I think Miles said that the cosmic background radiation was probably evidence of the charge field so we can already detect spinning photons with wavelength.
Still a photon even without a wavelength…that is so cool.
Do we just need detectors that are much more sensitive which are capable of responding to such weakly interacting particles?
Maybe Miles could conjure up a new material using his atomic nucleus graphics, which would enable this to be done?
How to detect something which passes through your detector as if it wasn’t there…..or a planet!
Maybe forcing these unseen particles to collide might make them more detectable, the other particles with wavelength being already known.
Is this what the CERN “particle collider” is trying to achieve? Maybe unknown to the operators, they may have already detected charge photons with no spin but just thought they were distortions in the field or some such….or noise?
Isn’t it always the case that you find the most useful thing when looking for something else?
When they smash protons(?) together and see particles appear, then disappear, they say they pop into our universe from a different dimension, then pop back out again.
I think they are witnessing no spin charge photons, maybe gaining a spin (wavelength) momentarily, then losing that spin again and so disappearing. Not into a different dimension, just becoming invisible again.
LikeLike
Russell, I was wondering about the same thing. How low can the energy state go? (The limbo question?) Are there any non-spinning photons? Are there slow photons? I think I recall reading in a paper or two, “No” to both, since any photon would have collided with others.
To me that raises another question: why do particles collide up only so far? What keeps them from all becoming massive particles? Somehow there’s just enough energy, per volume of charge field, to insure no lazy photons, but not enough to make every particle massive? I no doubt need to read more of the papers, and re-read some, but I’m not recalling where or whether it is discussed, the energy density of the charge field. If I had to guess, I’d start by proposing that somehow the charge field (or “space”) always expands the right amount, to maintain that equilibrium.
Also I’m wondering whether the exponent on c, in E=mc^2, wouldn’t go higher as we add spin levels. I guess it would, and that’s why more massive particles can’t go the speed of light?
One more wild question: why only 3 dimensions? Can charge-field theory explain it? Would spins be impossible to stack higher for some reason? Years ago, 1983, I browsed a book called The Creation by someone named Atkins. This amateur scientist tried to explain, among other things, why we have three dimensions of space. He proposed some topological reasons; one was that 3 is the only dimensionality in which it is possible to tie a knot. He reasoned that that would have implications for the stability of particles in space.
LikeLike
garrettderner said: “why do particles collide up only so far? What keeps them from all becoming massive particles?”
This is due to the ambient charge field, effectively. A proton is large enough to take in and recycle charge but small enough to (generally) stay “stable”. The neutron can only stay stable when channeling charge inside the nucleus – they “decay” in like 19 minutes outside the nucleus since they can’t channel the ambient charge field very well like a proton.
But as Miles has shown in his papers attacking the Higgs boson, particles larger than a proton can’t handle the ambient field and get knocked down (spun-down) into a proton or neutron rapidly. The proton is the most balanced larger particle, basically. Particles can get bigger (that is, their spin-paths can stack on a greater radius) but they just don’t last long before they get spun back down. Look up Miles’ work on beta-decay for more on that, where he shows there is no actual decay and also describes exactly what’s happening there.
garrettderner said: “Also I’m wondering whether the exponent on c, in E=mc^2, wouldn’t go higher as we add spin levels.”
It doesn’t go higher as I understand it. In any collision with photons or particles, you only have the two velocity vectors at the instant of collision – the linear velocity and the top-level spin velocity, which are both at light speed. The underlying stacked spins affect its radius and motion path, but they don’t multiply this tangential velocity. It’s still just c. They don’t compound. At the point of contact in a collision, you only have two vectors per particle: spin and linear.
garrettderner said: “One more wild question: why only 3 dimensions? Can charge-field theory explain it?”
Because those are the operational, definitional dimensions of volume. X, Y, Z. We don’t need charge theory to explain that – Miles actually explained it in detail before his charge theory began to mature, in one of his oldest papers:
http://milesmathis.com/time.html
“This theory was appealing to those who are attracted to mathematical esoterica, but unfortunately it is completely false. As I have shown, time is a measurement of movement. Without movement there is no time. But this movement already has a direction, determined by x, y, z: it cannot be given a secondary vector. All motion is a vector, and that vector must coincide to some distance vector within the 3-d continuum x, y, z. So to state that time has a vector outside this continuum is false. If time is a measurement of motion and all motion is contained in x, y, z, then time cannot be outside of or external or superadded to x, y, z. ”
And he hits it again quite strongly in his paper bashing String Theory:
http://milesmathis.com/string.html
LikeLike
Jared, thanks!
Fascinating about charge recycling and particle stability; it’s making more sense now.
And the energy calculation involving c^2, starting to make more sense, maybe. Are we talking about a collision that leaves the particle intact, or one that spins it down? I guess I never understood what energy Einstein was talking about there. (I stopped reading much physics after high school, but I recall then trying to comprehend the units the formula comes out in: gram square meters per second per second? Why? So glad Miles’ mechanical model helps make sense of it!)
Let me rephrase the question about dimensions. I did not ask about time, or time as a fourth dimension. I agree time is not that. Time.html does not address my question, because it takes x, y, and z as given. My question is, can we explain the number of dimensions we have in our world, without postulating them? I think the question might be addressable in this forum, because it looks like the domain of space is the domain of the charge field, and laws that were taken for properties of space, turn out to be aggregate activities of charge photons. I think the dimension question must be answerable in physics; I don’t think it is a metaphysical question. Certainly we can do geometry just as happily in 2, 3, 4 dimensions or more. So there is nothing obvious mathematically, to choose one dimensionality over another. So I think it must be something in nature. I don’t imagine the universe was given an empty space in which to occur. (“OK, why don’t you occur over there, in 3-dimensional space? That should do for now!”) No, surely nature and her space are one event.
LikeLike
dennisjoyleary said: “Now what comes to mind is what came first; the chicken or egg–the wave or the field? Or are they reciprocal?”
The particle is what “came first”, though delving where or how it came to be originally is beyond us all. A B-photon with no spin would just be flying through space at light speed with no waveform. A B-photon with one, single axial spin would also have no apparent waveform in its motion. It’s only when we get to the stacked spins, produced by certain collisions which cause the particle to “tumble” over another axis or other, that we would see any waveform in its motion. So the particle is the thing; the wave is just the tracked, perceived motion of that thing. The frequency is how fast it spins relative to light speed. Wavelength and frequency are human observations, labelled improperly up until Miles fixed the theory. But the photon doesn’t care about that stuff – it simply is.
LikeLike
SOME JEWISH GENETICS?
Genetic studies on Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Y-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews
35% to 43% of Jewish men are in the paternal line known as haplogroup J … particularly present in the Middle East, Southern Europe, and Northern Africa. Fifteen to 30% are in haplogroup E1b1b … (or E-M35)
[E1b1: (Einstein, Hitler, Napoleon, Rameses III; Rothschilds {may} not have a paternal lineage traced from the ancient Israelites but rather have origins somewhere within the Eurasian Steppe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_haplogroups_of_historic_people#Charles_Darwin — J: (Edward IV, Richard III) https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25236-Haplogroups-of-European-kings-and-queens — J: Katherinne de Roet (1348-1403) mtDNA J1c2c {maybe J mtDNA isn’t Jewish?}, Joan (House of Beaufort) (1375-1445) mtDNA J1c2c, Cecily de Neville (1415-1495) mtDNA J1c2c https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/patriots-and-royalty/about/results ]
Ashkenazi Jews are descended on their paternal side from a core population of approximately 20,000 Jews that migrated from Italy into the rest of Europe over the course of the first millennium, and that “All European Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins.” … Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe…. Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews were all very closely related to the populations of the Fertile Crescent, even closer than to Arabs. … 11.5% of male Ashkenazim, and more specifically 50% of the Levites while 1.7% of the Cohanim,[40] were found to belong to R1a1a (R-M17), the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern European populations. … Eastern European populations in general, might partly be descendants of Khazars.
… a number of Jewish communities reveal direct-line maternal ancestry originating from a few women. … the Mt-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews originated among southern European women, where Diaspora communities had been established centuries before the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE. … 32% of Ashkenazi Jews belong to the mitochondrial Haplogroup K…. there was “little or no gene flow from the local non-Jewish communities in Poland and Russia to the Jewish communities in these countries.” … 65%-81% of Ashkenazi Mt-DNA is European in origin, including all four founding mothers, and that most of the remaining lineages are also European.
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#UK
Haplogroup J1b is found across the Near East, particularly between the Caucasus, Iran and Arabia. J1b1a is the only J1b subclade typically found among Europeans. It is present all over Europe as well as around the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the Altai, and was almost certainly spread by the R1b branch of the Indo-Europeans. J1d, J2a2, J2b2 are essentially confined to the Middle East (+ North Africa for J2a2).
Haplogroup K was never found in Europe prior to to the Neolithic, then suddenly appears at a frequency (17%) much higher than in modern Europeans and similar to that of the present-day Levant. Most of the Neolithic K belongs to the K1a subclade. … The Indo-Europeans from Anatolia could also have contributed to the propagation of K. K1a1b1a and K1a9 are found primarily among Ashkenazi Jews. … Some mtDNA subclades are associated with Jewish ancestry, notably K1a1b1a, K1a9,d K2a2a and N1b.
LikeLike
JEWS IN ROMAN EMPIRE.
What the above quote said about Jewish “Diaspora communities had been established [in southern Europe] centuries before the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE” makes me wonder if the Roman Empire was actually controlled by the Jews, since it looks like the Romans had no problem with having Jews inhabiting southern Europe, which Rome controlled at that time. If that’s the case, then could the fall of the Second Temple and the massacre of the Jews in Israel by the Romans have been faked? And if the first massacre was faked, could the second massacre a century later have been faked as well? Josephus was an Israelite general, I think, who became a friend and subject of the Roman Emperor, Traban, or some name like that, if I recall rightly. Josephus wrote 5 books on Israelite history, I think, so I wonder how accurate that history was. I heard that he actually wrote favorably of Jesus. The early Christians were Jews too, but they were supposedly persecuted. By whom? The Romans, or the Jews in charge of Rome? Or were they not really persecuted?
LikeLike
Looks like it was Trajan, not Traban, and he didn’t become Emperor until 28 years later (after the 70AD “massacre”).
LikeLike
I don’t get this!
So if I stab my wife to death with a kitchen knife, her family should be able to sue the knife manufacturer for marketing the knife in the first place. For promoting it with an advert, showing how easily it will cut through fresh meat…..I think the worlds gone barking mad!
Background checks.
If someone is using a gun for their own protection, then no amount of scrutinising their history is going to help anyone predict them killing a burglar, rapist, mugger, drunken irate husband etc.
Were the judges high on prescription painkillers when they thought this through?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47578345
LikeLike
It says they can sue but I doubt anything will come of it in the end. Otherwise, auto manufacturers could be sued over their marketing of muscle cars whenever somebody is killed by some drunk behind the wheel of one (which is often).
LikeLike
In The Invention of the Jewish People, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues that the Diaspora story is a largely modern myth, to support the Zionist project. That after the destruction of the Second Temple (an event I think he affirms, but I didn’t finish the whole book), Palestine Jews were neither killed nor captured nor exiled, but that later generations of them in many cases became Christian or Moslem.
LikeLike
Say you want to get rid of guns but you want it to just look like they (gun manufacturers) went out of business because of “For the Greater Good” law suits. Sounds like that is the way to do it. . . slowly but surely
LikeLike
Vick:
That thought went through my mind too. A perfect example of ‘the nudge factor’.
Future scenario using Miles pointer would be, lots of hoax mass shootings, every one followed by increased gun sales. At the point people become aware of what’s going on, hit them with a gun ban, followed by an amnesty. Then sell all the confiscated guns to the burgeoning population of India, where I believe they have a much bigger problem than the US in areas such as rape and theft….according to the mainstream media. What can you believe these days?
But that way, the rich gun manufacturers cash in on the knee-jerk sales, then the rich merchants backed/helped by their government cash in as well. Its a win-win yet again.
Why sell them one, when you can sell them two at twice the price? A quote from the film Contact I believe John Hurt).
rolliekin:
Or sue the alcoholic beverage manufacturers because the car manufacturer is only partly to blame. Although I believe some cars are now fitted with clever sensors which can detect alcohol and refuse to start. Better switch to alcohol-free mouthwash…..but does the engine stop when you pull up at the lights, near a bar, downwind, in summer, with the windows down? Or drive past a Budweiser plant with the windows down? Would that trigger it I wonder?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared is right, energy is mass in motion. Something has to be moving, so a photon isn’t “just energy”. This is why I hate Dewey Larson. Motion isn’t enough. Every verb needs a noun. We don’t know what the photon is made of, and can’t know, so talking about it is senseless. But it is a real something in motion, with mass, radius, and spin. That is the only logic that gets us anywhere mechanically.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I replied to Garrett before I read your reply Miles.
“We don’t know what the photon is made of, and can’t know, so talking about it is senseless.”
Wow! That’s a hammer blow. So I’ll just think of the photon as a something.
Thanks for your reply Miles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean 99% of the time I’m just regurgitating Miles as best I can, Russell. I’m not sure where he said it off the top of my head in his papers, but currently the photon is the smallest “piece” or “part” of matter (thus, particle) we have observed. It’s also the piece or part of matter which our eyes respond to, which enables vision. So perhaps another type of creature might be able to find something smaller, but we can’t know and for the sake of science, we have to start SOMEwhere. So starting with light makes the most sense, except for almost a century nobody fucked with it. Then Miles did, and here we are – progress, after decades of none. He took it back to the foundational level and then worked up from there. It yielded the best answers, and plenty of them.
LikeLike
He’s described it as the fundamental particle, the fundamental quanta. One could think of the boundary between empty space and a photon as the nothing meets the something, but that’s just language. We know that physical matter exists, and also physical motion exists. Those are basically the postulates involved. And then you just work up from there – except some of us work much better and faster and more precisely/accurately than others, which is where a brilliant mind comes in handy. Others of us, like myself, just study the shit out of it and do our best to understand and use these ideas. I’m getting excited to move forward with my charge-botany experiments now that I’ve moved, for example, which I’ve babbled on about to MIles before and am eager to see what happens! But it’s still his theory, and I’d be nowhere without his work.
Here’s his botany paper on xylem/phloem if you’ve never read it:
The Pressure-flow Hypothesis is Wrong.
My first paper on plant physiology, showing that my charge field fills in holes in xylem and phloem transport.
http://milesmathis.com/xylem.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Charge – botany. I hope we can have some dialogue over that Jared. I found Miles xlem/phloen paper intriguing.
I say to trees as I pass them by, ‘hey tree, I know how you take a drink’. Not if anyone is nearby of course, they may think (realise?) I’m a raving nut case.
I may have mentioned my daughter doing biology who said they are still teaching the flapping branches theory where the tree somehow consciously or unconsciously lifts its branches during the day and droops them at night and so pumps the water/ nutrients up to the topmost foliage.
I’ll go with the Miles Sherlock Mathis theory myself.
LikeLike
And that’s an energetic metaphor with mass to back it up 😉
Brilliant discussion — talking about the little devils in the detail. But yes there has to be a point (oops — not the one dimensional kind!) were things become irreducible; indestructible?
LikeLike
NADA:
Good point….errrrm! d:^)
I suppose being able to destroy the very stuff that the universe is made of has to be impossible as it would then be possible to destroy the whole shebang.
Oh wait a minute. If (if?) the universe is infinite in extent then destroying it must be impossible, as you couldn’t destroy an infinite number of things.
Woah! ‘Ang about one minute their dudes. E=mc²?….I’m thinking mass to energy CONVERSION. I’m thinking fake nukes. I’m thinking Manhattan Project. Nuclear Sun.
So if the moving photon creates energy by moving, and energy can only exist if mass is moving. And you can’t destroy the photonic particle. Then mass CANNOT be converted into energy it can only create it by it’s motion.
Therefore Einstein can go fork himself along with the whole nuclear industry including all the counts terrifying everyone with the threat of a nuclear holocaust.
That whole energy to mass to energy conversion nonsense is….well….nonsense.
Miles….I think I’m getting it….please don’t tell me I’m talking bollocks again!
Now I’m realising why Miles says that the whole scientific world has been effectively flushed down the toilet.
I’ll bet Miles actually likes being called a crackpot because he knows that every person who calls him that is truly an imbecile and isn’t worth giving the time of day.
Why do we say that? Why don’t we say, ‘the time of night’? Don’t people want to know what time it is at 11PM?
Ok ok I’m going…….
LikeLike
@Russell Taylor said:
*“…every person who calls him that is truly an imbecile and isn’t worth giving the time of day.
Why do we say that?
Why don’t we say, ‘the time of night’?”*
“Time of day,” in this saying, infers 24-hours or one day. Therefor it includes night as well. In vampire communities, the term is, in fact, “time of night.” As in; “Those imbeciles who worship daylight aren’t worth giving the time of night,” since vamps do not recognize daylight. Well…they are cognizant of it…but know they don’t want to be present for it.
The basis of these old sayings are apt for their time and have become timeless in their nature. Just another gem from that wicked old tree of knowledge.
LikeLike
Hello everyone. Is Josh around ? I sent him email and no answer.
LikeLike
I’m around just very busy. I just answered your most recent email.
LikeLike
Why do photons pass right through some things like glass but not others?
LikeLike
I think this is where Miles’ atomic nucleus diagrams come in handy.
It’s all down to the way the charge photons are channelled through the atoms; the path they take. An object or substance may appear transparent to us but may be opaque to the charge field. Some have quite complex paths, some easy some not.
Listen to me….I sound like I know what I’m talking about!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually most or many photons do NOT pass straight through glass, any more than they do straight through water. The index of refraction of glass is 1.53; water’s is 1.33. A diamond is 2.0. So what’s happening is that photons travel through glass much QUICKER than through, say, a plate of stone or metal, with only a slight recursion and generally no spin-ups or spin-downs – thus coming through with the same “wavelength” or color as they entered bearing, allowing us to see what’s on the other side.
It’s refraction. It’s different than reflection, which is a bounce opposite the original vector of that photon hitting a mirror for example, or chrome. In refracting materials, we have charge moving through the material colliding only a few times and emerging – from the air-glass boundary, through the glass itself, then back through the glass-air boundary. Three bounces, in a clean experiment. The IoR indicates how bent that photon will be upon emerging. Some photons may pass straight through, but glass is a solid material (slow-moving liquid) and dense enough and full of enough of its OWN charge to bounce incoming charge around a bit on its way through. Other translucent materials can work the same way, but combining reflection and refraction you get many combinations of materials and they all have different through-charge properties.
Some spin-ups and downs might occur, which is part of why glass heats up in the sun of course, and also why a prism refracts into colors. Miles’ paper on that topic is great, give it a shot if you haven’t already:
Rainbows, Prisms, and non-Edge Diffraction:
A Rehabilitation of Goethe
by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html
LikeLike
Thanks but I didn’t say straight through. I said right through and I know about reflection and refraction but that doesn’t answer my question anyway.
I’ll re-phase:
Light behaves differently when it encounters objects we call transparent vs objects we call opaque. What accounts for this difference?
LikeLike
Perhaps this expansion will help:
“So what’s happening is that photons travel through glass much QUICKER than through, say, a plate of stone or metal, with only a slight recursion and generally no spin-ups or spin-downs – thus coming through with the same “wavelength” or color as they entered bearing, allowing us to see what’s on the other side.”
Visible light entering a denser, non-transparent material will bounce around many, many times and be spun-down into infrared or below, and most likely will leave the material at some incident angle unrelated to its initial entrance angle because it’s bounced around so many times and been channeled by the material’s atoms. This is “absorption” in the mainstream. But in a transparent medium, the photons have still only bounced three times (or so, but generally not less than three), so their angle of exit is still mathematically related to their angle of entrance.
For glass, that angle’s index is ~1.53. But since it went from air-glass to glass then to glass-air, it’s rebouncing OUT at the same angle as it came in, effectively reducing that angle to zero, net. That’s why the photon that hits your eye has the same color and intensity as it did entering the glass, and why we see “through” glass and other transparent materials. We’re not actually seeing THROUGH the glass, in any case, since it’s only photons that have passed through it already that strike our eye (or camera) that can be detected.
To see more what I mean, we can go to the mental ray for Maya documentation:
“The result on the left is the correct result, but how it is obtained?
“The solution to the problem is to rethink the modeling, and not think in terms of media, but in terms of interfaces. In our example, we have three different interfaces, where we can consider the IOR as the ratio between the IOR’s of the outside and inside media:
“It is evident that in the most common case of an interface with air, the IOR to use is the IOR of the media (since the IOR of air is 1.0), whereas in an interface between two different media, the situation is different.”
That might help you visualize the math a bit better?
LikeLike
“Visible light entering a denser, non-transparent material will bounce around many, many times …”
So, Jared, you’re saying that transparency/opaqueness is determined by object density? I don’t see that as being true in the world around me.
I don’t think that, say,. a sheet of corrugated cardboard is denser than a pane of window glass. Yet the glass easily passes light but not so with the cardboard.
If someone else besides Jared would care to take a stab at my question I would welcome it.
LikeLike
No, I didn’t say that at all. But since you’re wont to twist my words and disregard what I actually say, then I shall GO DOWNSTAIRS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question. Transparency is an effect where Miles’ charge field theory and his theory regarding atomic structure delivers a better model for why this happens than the current mainstream model. Mainstream says materials are transparent because atoms are mostly empty space and photons have no trouble passing through these large empty spaces between nucleus and electron. (but then shouldn’t everything be transparent?)
Miles’ atomic diagrams are completely different. Combined with his charge field theory he postulates that atoms can channel photons. They enter the atom at certain entry points, move through a network of nucleons and then come out again. Depending on the atomic structure this will happen along different paths. Some atoms channel charge right trough them along their “axis”, some take charge in at the poles and it comes out at the equator. Some look like a weird water fountain. More complex atoms have several in-takes and several outlets. This gets more complex when atoms combine to molecules which are nothing more than constructs that dock along their charge channels. Solid matter is a grid of atoms/molecules docked together along channel intakes/outlets. The photons flow through them like water through a pipe system. You pour it in, it comes out later. But depending on structure there are materials that are more efficient at this than others. There are materials that are “charge traps” were photons end up circulating through the “pipe system” for a longer time before egressing. Or it accumulates inside because there are not enough outlets (like a water tank with only a tiny pinhole outlet). This causes heating. Likewise there are also different propensities to take in ambient photons. Not ALL photons go into these channels. Some collide with the material and bounce off. They are reflected.
What that means, is: some atoms or molecules act like large straight pipes with a big diameter, some atoms act like a tangled-up mess of small tiny-diameter pipes. In the second case most photons wouldn’t even go into the charge channels and bounce off.
Now, visible light consists of photons of a specific wavelength (i.e. of a specific energy level, i.e. a certain spinrate) For a material to be transparent, these light photons have to be able to travel relatively undisturbed through the charge channels. Spin shouldn’t be changed too much. So, glass let’s the light photons in and out easily and black cloth for example would reflect a certain percentage, and the rest gets trapped inside the molecular structure, the spin is reduced and when it comes out it’s just heat.
Note that different materials can be transparent to photons of certain energy-levels but opaque to others. This is all due to the structure on atomic, molecular and crystaline levels. Which is also the cause for refraction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So, glass let’s the light photons in and out easily and black cloth for example would reflect a certain percentage, and the rest gets trapped inside the molecular structure, the spin is reduced and when it comes out it’s just heat.”
Ollie:
I’m thinking x-rays (x-photons?) and the scare story that your body absorbs some which can damage DNA and ’cause’ cancer. This must be wrong as all the photons that enter must also leave but not necessarily in the same spin state, at the same energy level, they were in when they entered.
As far as glass is concerned, a microwave oven when left running but empty, will actually heat up the glass turntable but won’t heat up the metal body as much. The smooth metal reflecting the photons back toward the glass. I suppose, after a few collisions, many will be spun down and be more able to exit easily through any medium, metal or glass as heat
Good point Ollie.
Professor Magneson:
You absolutely sure you’re not a physicist dude?
LikeLike
I’m only a student. I studied light before encountering Miles for over a decade, as it pertained to my 3D-rendering, but he showed me what was up with the physics. I spent a decade arguing about light in mental ray for Maya forums, and refined my views and polemics there, chiefly at CGTalk.com.
I still study light and do my CGI bullshit job, but now it’s a lot cooler since I know where the CGI engines fudge data to make a pretty picture, and divorce the physics. Rendering glass and metal is just par for the course. mental ray was a photon Global Illumination engine (I use Vray now, but it’s the same math generally) and it was really cool to learn and play with it, but also a huge pain in the ass for production and deadlines. A very complex puzzle. Miles helped me more than he’ll ever know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
those licenses are expensive, I miss the days prior to “software as a service”, don’t you Jared?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually no, Russell Tropinsky (RT). Photoshop is $15 a month now, instead of $995 for a new version. Maya is $3K for a subscription now, which includes updates to that year’s release, instead of $7K flat for a new version. I still use Maya 2015 myself since there haven’t been any new features in 2016-2019 that I would use. But even so, it’s my work that buys the licenses I need, not myself personally. It’s just part of the overhead for a remodeling/construction company. Rhino 3D, Maya, Photoshop. If it were just me on my own I’d never be able to afford Maya, but Photoshop and Rhino aren’t too pricey.
LikeLike
About shooting in Christchurch, NZ, I got this :
https://www.henrymakow.com/2019/03/brendon-oconnell-false-flag.html
What do you think ?
LikeLike
I’ve only seen bits of the video but it was too fake-looking to hold my interest. That article suggest that it actually happened. Not convinced that it did. There’s been way too many of these fakes already; crying wolf isn’t going to help now.
LikeLike
I usually give it a week and let everyone analyse the footage, then see what they found. The guy keeps mentioning the AR15 assault style rifle as do all the other recent shooting events. Its only military styled. It’s a .22 small game gun for rabbits and such like. If the alleged shooter is military trained, he would use a gun more useful for taking down humans. There are too many similarities with other recent shootings for me to take it seriously at face value. I need more evidence
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually the “AR-15” is a platform, not a specific gun.
“A hunter with a single lower receiver might have one upper receiver with a .223 Remington barrel and telescopic sight for varmint hunting in open country and another upper receiver with a .458 SOCOM barrel and iron sights for big-game hunting in brushy woodland. The dimensions of upper and lower receivers originally designed for the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge impose an overall length limit and diameter limits when adapting modules for other cartridges included in this list of AR platform calibers.”
So while it was initially made for much larger rounds, there are so many variants that unless the bullet type is specified one can only speculate. It’s a STYLE of rifle, not a brand or type since Colt’s rights to the patents and whatnot expired in 1977. Their initial commercial offering by Colt was a .223, yes. But there’s no reason to believe it’s not a deadly weapon in expert hands.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the validity of this fake event. I’m going to watch the fake video again and see if I can spot some obvious flaws. Every other event with this kind of exposure has been shown fake, so taking a stance that this one is too is just common sense at this point.
LikeLike
Faked and staged without second glance. If it was a a real shooting by a mad bloke the story would have been buried on page 100, instead of being blasted across all channels. The controlled MSM only reports stories it already controls. They’ve been long overdue for some phony white supremacist event involving Muslims. Always a sign of Intel; they have hoaxes for everyone’s tastes.
Most folks are at least conspiracy grade level 1 now. It’s this and agencies probably running ops against each other now. Stop by Pewdiepie’s YT channel (someone already outed him as some Disney asset) but don’t stay long cause you’ll want to upchuck your breakfast soon enough; the kids aren’t watching TV anymore but YT, Twitch, and playing video games so most of the propaganda directed against kids today are on these three platforms. Nobody is buying the official story.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The sad thing is, the majority of people are buying the official story. They watch the news and read papers and think the government is on their side, and accept it all as truth. If they didn’t, they would have turned that junk off ages ago. Perhaps more people are becoming skeptics – as you say, conspiracy grade 1 – cause its hard to live a life on media and avoid some pretty compelling conspiracies (even if it is spook misdirection). Hell they even put their own conspiracies on TV. But again, most people don’t question it further – that would take time and research and invite odd looks from your colleagues – and just accept their spook misdirection.
I read one article on the shooting by a prominent NZ paper and it was enough to blow the whole thing. None of the victim stories made any sense. A video at the top of the page had Police Honcho such and such Bush giving his report. I didn’t even need to watch it.
LikeLike
@helios22:
said:
“About shooting in Christchurch, NZ, I got this :
What do you think ?”
Likely a false-flag hoax event, although to boring an event to study in any detail. However happened on the anniversary of Caesar’s death on 15 March 44AD – the unlucky Ides of March. 39 injured with 11 in intensive care. ‘Killer’ was arrested 36 minutes after the first emergency call (3+6=9=Death number). Usual script – ‘young far right white fascist Muslim hater goes on a shooting rampage, indiscriminatingly killing and maiming loads of innocent worshippers. Immediate calls for gun bans from politicians’. Same old, same old.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No need for the word “likely”. Or false-flag, really, it’s not a false flag, it’s just a hoax. A false flag is when you attack yourself and pretend it was your enemy, but there was no attack here, just a hoax: a faked attack. No victims, no perpetrator, only actors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@R T:
Depends how you look at it. The enemy of the state who the puppet government have been instructed to blame for the hoax is those citizens who would like to stop their country being over-run by foreign immigrants, who could be potential terrorists. Of course, the real enemy of the ordinary people in New Zealand and the rest of the world are their own government and the Puppet Masters running the Global Shoah. The reason for the ‘likely’ was simply because there are so many similar events that I’ve not looked at this one in any detail as I really can’t be asred.
LikeLike
I think it probably is a false flag too, if they’re blaming Christians for killing Muslims, although I don’t know if that’s what they’re saying yet, since I just started looking into this a little. Looks like a pretty good analysis of a news report of the shooting called ChristChurch FAKE Shooting Breakdown (Part 1) Is that enough context? at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRugz53gveE
I have some work to do, so I’ll check back in here after that, at least to read what you all are saying in more detail.
LikeLike
I’m only clarifying because I see the term false flag being thrown around a lot on websites and forums and it seems that although you’re correct about what you have just said, it seems the more colloquial meaning of the term has become “the event is a real event, just perpetrated by our government because they want to foment war, yadda yadda”, but what we have seen is even the wars are fake, ISIS is fake, the chemical attacks are faked, everything is faked. So, I think it’s important to point out that beyond just a “false flag”, it’s a fake event.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, yeah, okay. Very true. False flag and Fake too.
LikeLike
Gotta love the muddying of the waters in that video though; he’s going great for about 15 minutes with some very solid analysis; at which point he starts bringing up flat earth out of nowhere. And that is the real point of this gentleman’s video: anyone who doesn’t believe these events must be an insane flat earther. That’s what anyone watching his video would come away with, anyway. Everytime I watch these YouTube truth videos, they always have to throw in something like that. It’s incredible.
LikeLike
@RT, Are you sure “flat earth” was mentioned? I didn’t see that. Are you referring to the video I linked? If so, do you want to locate the time on the video where he said that?
LikeLike
PS, this StyxHH video is what reminded me to check out the Christchurch event:
The Lamestream Cannot Survive Peace and Calm, so they Stir Up Hate and Chaos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGmvlQxHvI but he generally seems to accept the authenticity of such events, unfortunately, so he’s only half woke I guess.
LikeLike
CHRISTCHURCH.
Below I try to show a sense of what the media is promoting and what doubters are thinking.
Article Title: Rush Limbaugh Claims New Zealand Mosque Shootings Were False Flag Operation, Offers No Evidence
Video (ProMuslim Mormon who says the event was real) Title: ChristChurch False Flag? The Bankster War On Christians Begins – Google is Censoring Truth!
[Youtube says about this video: Certain features have been disabled for this video. In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.]
[I can’t go to the Channel to see other videos on it.]
BuzzFeed says: Friday’s attack at two mosques in New Zealand was committed by a shooter who deployed a social media strategy to go with his actions. He live-streamed on Facebook, he posted on Twitter about his plans, and he released a manifesto boobytrapped with references to online subcultures, memes, and influencers designed to trigger backlash — and even more coverage. … In the wake of every mass shooting or disaster going back close to a decade, these real acts and events have been followed by the rapid spread of fake images, false suspects, and attempts to shift blame and attribution. We’ve documented this again and again in articles, videos, and Twitter threads. But not this time, at least not yet. We don’t see high-profile fakes of the suspect or the victim, and even the reliably vocal conspiracy theorists aren’t touting the usual “this shooting was staged by the government” fake. The absence of a disinformation onslaught stands out. … This attack shows that along with debunking fakes and helping spread accurate information, newsrooms, platforms, and public officials need to think about how to avoid playing into the hands of people whose deadly actions are designed to trigger maximum exposure for their message, and set off new cycles of violence and radicalization.
Similarly, “The Christchurch Shooter’s Manifesto Is Meant to Troll” – The Atlantic
Reddit: Christchurch shooter [is] a false flag / fake news. Here’s why… (self.conspiracy)
– NZ = five eyes (zionist empirical property)
– shootings happen all the time, yet this one is getting soooooo much traction in the main stream media — too much traction! with all due respect to the kiwis — who fucking cares?! CNN is literally live blogging this stupid shit!
– muslim (aka mossad asset)
– the shooter posted on VOAT and 8chan (these two properties have way too much influence, and the global deep state is look[ing] for way to minimize … influence);
– the shooter mentioned pewdiepie (pewds has too much influence, and the global deep state is looking for way to minimize his influence);
– the shooter is a White Supremacist™, and yet the shooter loved pakistan — complained that pakistan should ease-up on visa restrictions (i.e., mossad is having a hard time getting terrorist assets through the boarder) PS. who uses [their] actual full name and posts their fucking photo on 8chan?! totally staged.
– five eyes assets really don’t like guns in the hands of citizens, and 1:4 kiwis have guns.
– defence.pk has deleted a page that allegedly proved that Brenton Tarrant was a RAW (Indian Secret Service) spy for India
– Mossad, RAW (Indian Secret Service) cooperation deepens
– Rothschild controlled Financial Times says that New Zealand security services under scrutiny after deadly shootings — aka. Mossad agents will not be paid to “improve security” — much like the Chertoff group got paid to install body scanners after the Las Vegas Shooting [Miles suggested that the Vegas fake was designed partly to produce demand for body scanners]
– shooting was live-streamed — for maximum media impact.
– Brenton Tarrant (from Australia) traveled to NZ to kill muslims because there are not any in australia ?!
– the alleged arrest of Brenton Tarrant’
– mossad is well known to have sleeper cells in christchurch
– the hatred of social media by the global zionist deep state
… i could go on and on… but yea… so obviously a false flag.
4chan: Jew media props up fake Christchurch hero
– Abdul Aziz makes up some horseshit story that does not make any sense about how he saved many lives from the cowardly attacker and Jew media props him up despite nothing about his story making any sense. Here are the 2 Youtube videos of him with the highest view counts. Please leave comments about how retarded it is to believe his story.
– 4chan [European?] Commenter: Media desperation to keep this event in the spotlight, Europeans couldn’t care less from what I’ve seen. I don’t even think they’ve featured this dumbass with his ponytail and gun chucking story in any internal media outlets, only Euronews which isn’t all that much. Wouldn’t be surprised if you polled this event that a majority would be apathetic towards it and those ballsy enough to share their true views would think the underlying motivations were just. We’re three days removed from the shooting and literally nobody gives a shit about a couple of muslims getting blown out of their socks, than again my country is infested with their kin and is already dealing with the fruits of mass-immigration, (self-)radicalization and their parallel society (which marxists are still hiding under the guise of multiculturalism). Seemed like most people just went through the motion but all knew that what the guy claimed in his manifesto was true.
LikeLike
COMMENTS ON THE NZ SHOOTING
Snuff Films are Illegal. It’s proper that snuff films should be illegal, because they encourage extreme illegal, immoral actions, the murder of innocent people. But capital punishment should also be illegal, because it is similarly immoral. Even when people are tried for committing murder and found guilty, it often turns out that they were innocent, so capital punishment is too severe, since a significant number of innocent people are victimized by it.
The NZ shooting is said to have been live-streamed on Facebook and it seems that many people viewed the live-streaming and are convinced that the alleged murders depicted were real. And New Zealand is said to have warned the public not to have any copies of the video on their computers etc or be fined thousands of dollars. That actually seems to be an appropriate warning, come to think of it, because the video probably fits the definition of a snuff film, if it was not faked. However, I believe everyone [competent adults] has the right to have a copy of the video in order to determine if it is or is not fake, if they did not pay for the video or if the video has not been legally proven to be a true snuff film.
One of the news article titles [on another site] rightly asks “Why are ISIS beheading videos shown on the news, but NZ mosque shooting footage banned?” Another rightly asks “Christians are slaughtered by Muslims all the time and we never hear about it. Why?” Another said “The NZ mosque was a known terrorist recruitment center”. One article said the shooter is/was an intelligence agent for India. This all leads me to suspect that the shooting was indeed staged and that the murders were faked, using Hollywood/Bollywood special effects, for the purpose of inciting division among the public, further outlawing guns, blackwashing Christians and conservatives, further brainwashing liberals, further promoting Muslim immigration to western nations, promoting more draconian censorship of conservatives and skeptics online, reinforcing fake news and mainstream control, etc.
(I just posted that at https://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24288.msg301099#msg301099 )
LikeLike
PS, I should have added that the video was probably made in advance by experts and then shown on live-stream without actually being live.
LikeLike
Do we see the beginning of a global gun ban?
They seem to be ramping up the rhetoric.
People are becoming numb to so many mass shootings in the US maybe, so lets move on to multiple countries who all seem to have the same problem. Lets spread that fear around a little and see what response we get…..can’t have 50 dead at every shooting or people will get suspicious….
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47611811
LikeLike
LikeLike
I find the discussion of photons intellectually challenging and emotionally invigorating. Dear Photon, “Something there is about you that strikes a match in me; Is it the way your body moves or is it the way your hair blows free?”
I culled thoughts that I want to mull over that others might too. Quotes are assumed in the following:
Patterns in a field can’t have mass. What has mass is the field itself, which is made up of real charge. Miles.
The charge field is the fundamental field here, not the molecular field. The molecular field is driven and created by the charge field. Miles.
The photon’s “wave” is simply an observation of repetition in a photon’s path. As it moves linearly, it’s traveling along its various nested spin-paths. Jared.
…what exactly tethers the photon to the center of its spin path? Ollie.
I think it’s inertia? Russell.
how does the photon keep spinning….effectively perpetual motion? Russell.
This sea of photons always having existed and infinite in extent. Like….WOW! Russell.
A real photon doesn’t have a “motion-center”. It simply moves through its spins, wobbles, and tumbles. Jared.
there is no “tether” and nothing like an “orbit” at the photon or even nucleon levels…a single proton or neutron doesn’t really have a static shape, except relative to other nearby protons and neutrons, atoms and molecules. Jared.
Life spirals. Life is vortex, not just rotation. The helical model. [An awesomely beautiful link, courtesy of Jared].
Energy is mass moving at the speed of light linearly and the speed of light tangentially, due to spin – that’s why we use “c²”. Jared.
We need a group think here….what the feck is a charge photon made from?
Come on people, let’s make history! Russell.
I’m breaking for basketball, where charge is everything. Charge of the Light Brigade. Will continue unless I’m breaking some rule.
LikeLike
So, if photons are particles and have mass and are absorbed by dark colored objects then if you place, say, a black cloth under a light and leave it there for a long time, the cloth should get heavier and heavier due its absorption of all those zillions of photons.
LikeLike
ROLLIEKIN:
Until very recently I was still getting tripped up by that mainstream thought trap.
Photons don’t get absorbed like we are taught. Energy that the rapidly moving photon possesses can be passed to other photons through collision but nothing ever becomes absorbed.
As they are recycled by larger particles like protons which make up the atoms in the material of the cloth, some collide and get spun down – lose a spin, shrink in size (radius), and potential energy etc – then exit as a more basic photon, a charge photon, which is just heat. The longer you bombard the black cloth with visible light photons, the more collisions are likely and the more heat photons will escape back at you which you feel as more heat.
All this stuff would make some brilliant animations if someone had the skills AND the time on their hands. Has Nevyn got anything like that Jared? Showing how materials are heated by charge photons?
LikeLike
The only mass that stays behind is the material the cloth is made from. No mass is actually added. The mass of the photons is simply deflected, bounced, recycled through the materials atoms and back out into space as heat, nothing stays behind.
I know….it gives me a headache!
LikeLike
But then if I were to hook up a power source to an LED such that the LED emits light (photons) which each have mass and weight and if I leave that LED glowing, it should get lighter and lighter as it emits those photons, right?
LikeLike
The photons are not stored in and then drained from that LED. They pass through it.
LikeLike
PHOTON STORAGE.
This is something others disagreed with me about on the Miles Mathis forum that Jared and I are members of. To me it’s obvious that large objects store photons. Maybe they didn’t understand what I meant. I acknowledge that the photons wouldn’t be stored within individual protons, neutrons and other particles. Instead, what I mean is that large bodies store many or most of the photons for a period of time. Heat loss is probably a way to measure approximate storage time. The Earth is fairly warm, I guess about 300K. Whether it’s thousands or millions of years old, it obviously has been storing its heat/photons for a long time. New ones are constantly coming in while others are constantly going out, but there is an average time that each photon remains within the body of the Earth. Those near the surface surely leave sooner than those near the center.
To me it seems absurd to think that the number of photons coming into the Earth are of about the same amount as the photons within the Earth. The number of photons within the Earth should be vastly greater than those entering. There should be vastly more photons coming from the Sun to the Earth than from any other direction and the second greatest source should be the Moon. I believe that what our eyes and instruments detect are close to accurate measurers of photons and they detect way more coming from the direction of the Sun than any other direction.
How long photons are stored in a body on average should be directly proportional to its mass (and maybe shape to some extent). So two bodies of the same size but of much different masses would have much different average storage times. Take two satellites out into space, one of high density and one of low density, and the high density one will retain its heat much longer than the low density one.
In his Atmosphere paper Miles even stated that neutral molecules and atoms retain most of their own charge, while ions do not. I guess he hasn’t speculated on how long charge remains within neutrals, but it seems like it may not be extremely hard to figure out.
LikeLike
No, my understanding is that the black cloth will start to get a bit warmer from the kinetic energy of the photons from the lamp and start to radiate more energy away as photons in the IR spectrum, so no change in its weight. Mass and energy are just two sides of the same coin.
LikeLike
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-47602781/christchurch-shooting-survivor-says-he-forgives-his-wife-s-killer
i lost my wife but i dont hate the killer…as a person i love him…..either
a) he paid the life assurance premiums post a massive increase in sum assured
b) he fucking hates his wife
c) he is getting paid a load of dinero to BS the public
d) his wife was killed and he loves the killer
the British Brainwashing corporation
LikeLike
Yeah a lot of phoeny victims say that, don’t they? Are people expected to think, “That’s so wonderful he doesn’t want revenge, blessed are the peacemakers!” But anyone who praises that kind of forgiveness act, trains himself to be worse than masochist, a self-abolisher! Is that the idea?
But who believes a lousy actor like that guy? He recites the lines without the least feeling at all. Then again, the writing is even worse. How could any actor be expected to believably deliver, “I’m sorry but I can’t approve the act”?
Bad writing or crude comedy? Maybe the idea is, portray anyone religious as a ridiculous clown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw it as a teaching moment , pointing out to my fellow viewers ” look no actual tears , no puffy eyes from hours of grief and emotional pain , their story is not believable ” .
It’s the Ides of Mosque , the cameras are rolling ,
at least have onions on hand people !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miles has a new paper on the MONA ‘Dark MOFO’ paganistic ‘art’ installation event in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. I’ve been to MONA, just an hour flight away from me, to check it out, and was nowhere near as excited about the place as most people seemed to be. People laud it because they are told how great it is, but, meh… Having been to Tasmania quite a few times, I can definitely vouch for the ‘dark past’ that still seems omnipresent (if you’re sensitive to that kind of thing, it is actually overwhelming in some parts), and can also also agree that there will be a very great number of the local population that would be most distressed by the overtly ‘Satanist’ aspect of the outdoor installations, just as that more ‘straight-laced’ portion of the population has expressed grave concern at the perceived threat of the MONA collection. MONA itself was, for a long time if it is not still, free to enter for anyone with a Tasmanian postcode (zip) – this was promoted as a ‘gift to the people’, but I sensed it was more a desperate ploy to enhance visitor numbers.
In this paper, Miles offers up some ideas for how to fight the Modern push that is always ongoing somewhere, which is generous, and some of those ideas are attractive. I note the following advice: “Do not frame it as a Jewish question”, in the context of openly expressing opposition to taxpayer funded ‘art’ events of an establishment nature.
I’ve raised that issue, of polarising opinion when sharing these sorts of theories or perspectives, in this forum previously. Wasn’t received well, because “they ARE Jewish”, and I get that. But, just interesting to read Miles suggesting moderation of the J-bomb in certain situations, which is what I was advocating or querying by my prior comments on that matter.
I also noted, or at least think I detected, an increase in the firmness and frankness of the J aspect in Miles’ papers subsequent to that comment exchange… Every time I read “Jewish of course”, or “obviously Jewish” or words to that effect, I winced – felt like I was being slapped on the back of the head from over Texas way.
Also, waiting for a paper on the Christchurch event. After the dust has settled, of course.
LikeLike
Reading Miles’ latest, I thought of Colin Farrell, the Irish actor:
http://ethnicelebs.com/colin-farrell
Jackson, Carthy, and Tyrrell surnames crop up, and Simpson on his maternal line. Perhaps he could play Bart in Simpsons the Movie?
LikeLike
I am trying to understand the basis of light, which is the photon. Education is the process of drawing out deeper meaning. I start from where I am which involves learning from you, and Miles in particular. I have been reading Miles’ science papers but with little understanding, lacking a background in the subject. In the following I quote concepts that help me understand at the point I am. I reread them until they begin to coalesce into a larger pattern, or not. A handful of basic ideas begin to stick and connect like dots making a bigger picture with repetition. I started this method with a former comment and will continue as long as it works. For convenience I omit quotation marks which are assumed. I begin with quotes from cttf (including Miles) and then proceed to Miles’ science papers on light and charge, section eight.
Einstein’s curved space always had me asking, “So what is it curved IN?”… What does curved mean? Garrett.
photons, which cause electricity by moving through matter through its poles, through its spin-axis directions. They cause magnetism by moving out around the equator while spinning more one direction or the other. Jared.
the actual particle doesn’t change, it just starts along a more complex path due to added spins. Russell.
It’s only when we get to the stacked spins, produced by certain collisions which cause the particle to “tumble” over another axis or other, that we would see any waveform in its motion. Jared.
energy is mass in motion. Something has to be moving, so a photon isn’t “just energy”… Motion isn’t enough… We don’t know what the photon is made of, and can’t know, so talking about it is senseless. But it is a real something in motion, with mass, radius, and spin. That is the only logic that gets us anywhere mechanically. Miles.
He’s described it as the fundamental particle, the fundamental quanta. One could think of the boundary between empty space and a photon as the nothing meets the something, but that’s just language. Jared.
But yes there has to be a point (oops — not the one dimensional kind!) were things become irreducible; indestructible? nada0101.
Some spin-ups and downs might occur, which is part of why glass heats up in the sun of course, and also why a prism refracts into colors. Jared.
******Numbers refer to the order of Miles’ science articles:
The Wavelength and Frequency of Light are Reversed. [First article of Section 8: Light and Charge. Quotes are assumed].
Spins could stack or cancel in collision, because they can transfer energy in a direct mechanical way…A wavelength is just a distance…frequency is actually a measurement of spin velocity… If the wavelength is the spin radius, then frequency is the number of times per second that a point on the spin circumference returns to the same spot…frequency is just another measurement of the velocity of that point on the spin circumference…Given a spin and a radius of spin, a frequency gives us a velocity. So with spin, the
frequency and the velocity are actually the same thing. And if the thing that is spinning has any mass, then the velocity will give us an energy. 265
photons increase energy by stacking spins…the second spin has twice the radius of the first… a photon with more radius has more energy, and less frequency. 265
the wave belongs to each and every photon, and is caused by the spin of each particle… the wavelength of the photon is just its radius, and the frequency is determined by the speed of spin. The linear speed of the photon then stretches out the wavelength and slows down the frequency, giving us the photon we see and measure. 265
Energy is proportional to frequency, not wavelength…The only thing that exists is the spin of the photon, which is a frequency, not a wavelength…we need both a frequency and a radius, which will give us a velocity…. 265
I will switch gears to art and history, here and elsewhere, and let this physics sink in if it will. More comments on physics keep coming; hard to keep up but fortunately I’m retired with time to study. Thanks to all.
LikeLike
Yes, most people are believing the official narrative on Christhurch mosque shooting. Here is one believing it very much in a forum also buying it, plus posting the video. I just don’t get it, with todays cameras and memory cards, why does the quality have to be so lousy?
https://voat.co/v/8chan/3102378
another possibility for the NZ gov to ban the vid, may be it doesn’t really stand daylight.
As for my own thoughts on the video, i think its too calm, if 49 people was to be gunned down, something absurd would happen. People facing death are not predictable.
The first thing i heard about the shooter was that he was a known communist earlier. Don’t know if its true.
Tasmania ? They do grow a lot of opium there, great fenced areas. For big Pharma.
LikeLike