Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-11 Bad

About Butch

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/13/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tampa, FL
  • College Major/Degree
    A.S. Computers 1976 (weird science at the time)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics
  • Biography
    Fool on the hill
  • Occupation
    Commercial fisherman

Recent Profile Visitors

6297 profile views
  1. Thank you, you always make things pretty clear...
  2. Do gravitational force and escape velocity have a direct and constant relationship, specifically is the gravitational force at the schwarzild radius the same for any body? If so what is it?
  3. Hi! I think you are in right track. The independent coincidences of meditations (without of high math skills as reported by moderators) is interesting.


  4. Hmm... Big Bangers believe they know the source of it!
  5. Proto-particle

    That depends on the slit and the horizontal position of the particle passing through it. If the particle is to the left, the well will have greater gravitational attraction on the left than the right and the particle will be deflected to the left. With 2 slits then, you would have an interference pattern. The particle is not a wave but produces a pattern like a wave.
  6. Proto-particle

    Yes, I have, I am saying that a true particle is a gravity well that has a wave function, but is not a wave. n = 1 n>1 n<1
  7. Proto-particle

    Sorry, misspoke... I of course meant angular velocity.
  8. Proto-particle

    Right now the math I am toying with is that the proto-particles orbit each other at a distance equal to the sum of their schwarzchild radii, hence their angular momentum equals c. I did not pick this out of thin air! When charting the particles separated by 2: 1/(x+n)^2 + 1/(x-n)^2 If n=1 the curve between the two is smooth and I believe describes a near conical section, that is a section of distorted cone. If x<1 this curve becomes rather acute. If x>1 this curve becomes almost obtuse. I will post examples shortly. I understand what you are saying, however if the proto-particle holds up, particles are made up of gravity wells, while the photon is a wave phenomena. The curvature of the gravity well passing through a slit would produce a wave function as the proximity of the center of the wells to one side or the other, the inverse of what happens when a wave packet passes through a slit. So there is a distinction between wave packets that have a particle nature and particles that have a wave function.
  9. Proto-particle

    Understood, however is the photon actually a particle? Could it be that it is simply a wave packet that exhibits behaviour lime that of a particle?
  10. Proto-particle

    Yes, it is a model, what distinguishes it is that the basic building block cannot exist solo. I would like to include some other minds in playing with it.
  11. Proto-particle

    From what I have been reading, it was thought that there were particles without mass, but it seems they are particles with very little mass. Although a photon has a particle nature that does not make it a massless particle. Did auto correct undermine your statement? "success in". The preon models propose a particle that is the building block of the universe, the proto-particle is not quite a particle... It must exist in unison with at least one other proto-particle for the system to be a true particle. Yes there could be more than two proto-particles in the system. I am currently investigating this as it might apply to chirality and charge, any help here appreciated!
  12. Proto-particle

    Mass and spin, a particle must have mass and spin... However I believe that for a particle to have more than one property it must have underlying structure, for the sake of this discussion let us assume that this is the case. This idea presents a quandary for certainly a particle must have spin and mass to exist. The solution to this is what I call the proto-particle, the most primitive building block of our universe. Let us consider a particle with a single property, is that property mass or spin? Certainly it must be mass for without mass there could not be angular momentum. My investigation of what this particles structure might be began with the idea that it was a gravitational well and nothing but a gravitational well, one that has limits of infinity. It is simple enough to graph this well with distance the x axis and gravitational force the y axis. The problem was I had no reference frame for "x". I have found that a more useful way to describe the proto-particle is by mapping the escape velocity with units of "c", I still don't have a reference frame for x, however as I continue my discussion you will see that is not important at this time. This "particle" cannot stand alone... The gravity well that is the particle would collapse, however with the addition of a partner we produce a true particle with spin and mass! The partners orbit each other producing angular momentum and providing the force (centripetal) needed to keep each proto-particle stable. I suspect that they orbit at a distance between centers of mass of 2 times the Schwarzschild radius, but not certain about this yet. We now have a particle with underlying structure that has mass and spin.
  13. Simple question?

    At what rate does escape velocity diminish?
  14. Structure v Properties

    Quarks are said to have no internal structure, however there are many types of quarks. On the face it would seem that they are defined by properties (Mass, Spin, Charge), how do we differentiate between properties and structure when many properties are defined by particles?
  15. Just a thought...

    Thanks for the link. I think they are over complicating by using the standard model as a guidepost, best advice you gave me was that my particle did not necessarily belong in the standard model. Still having trouble determining a value for x=1, but making progress... Problem is determining mass density as well as the concept of the dimensions of the well being infinite. In terms of math the slope at x=1 is 1 what is the slope at sea level on earth? It should be very close to 0.