Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Butch last won the day on August 13 2021

Butch had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Butch

  • Birthday 10/13/1955

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tampa, FL
  • Interests
    Physics and phishing.
  • 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

12115 profile views

Butch's Achievements


Protist (7/13)



  1. Butch

    What is "i"?

    It is not clear, you need to look again... I will work on the tasks you have presented. Also a persistent shift in phase of a closely interactive system would produce a field unique in comparison to the "normal" gravitational field... It would comprise an EM field. The photon would not be a member of this field, but it would be a close cousin.
  2. Butch

    What is "i"?

    Well I have described the how of a photon... I am seeking charge. There is much between here and the "standard model". You do not have to agree with my hypothesis to explore possibilities, in fact to do so would be foolish. Perhaps you have a bit of time to take a positive outlook, just for giggles? And as I have stated, charge would be represented by a persistent phase shift.
  3. Butch

    What is "i"?

    Only an entity with but a single property can be the most primal constituent of our universe.
  4. Butch

    What is "i"?

    My entities have no inertia, they have no mass... the apparent mass of my entities is the combined gravitational influence of every other of these entities in the universe... the gravitational field. Any properties that I am able to discover via my hypothesis will be properties of the gravitational field, not my entities. Charge will produce particles that my entities are a constituent of, but the property of charge will be evidenced in the gravitational field produced via my entities in a system of inyteraction.
  5. Butch

    What is "i"?

    My model has just 3 entities coupled via 3 lines of force, I have joined 2 ("ac" and "bc" to demonstrate the influence of the system "ab" on "c". The mathematical definition you speak of is also to be applied to a limited system to produce usable quantities, it could be applied to the whole of the universe. My hypothesis is no different, the couplings are there, the degrees of freedom also... The tripping point is that this hypothesis ventures to the extreme micro, the exchanges of energy are predestined, as my entities comprise everything. By the way, as "ab" returns to quiessence the system "ab" and "c" would relocate, this relocation would affect the neighbors who would affect the neighbors etc./time. It is here, observe the photon model I have presented, it is a wave packet and more, this photon would have influence on the entire universe as the lines of force between "ab" and every other of my entities in the universe, there will be "interference" as this wave propagates, and as far a "c" is concerned it would be a variance in strength along a single dimension. It will be this way for all of existence. That is imperical evidence that goes back to the very youth of physics. The sum of the energy propagated from "ab"? Zero! Before the energy was propagated by "ab" it was received by "ab" and is being propagated not just by "ab" but the entire universe. All the math and models work here... what is missing is units. Before we have units, we need to find properties and relate them, then we can connect to existing theory. I am not trying to rewrite science. And please keep in mind, the only property my entities express is garavitation... all other properties are expressed in the gravitational field. The Beatles "fool on the hill" saw the sun going down, but the eyes in his head, saw a world spinning 'round... quite a leap at the time, the kind of leap that could get you killed. I am speaking locally concerning my entities, they have the property of gravitation which produces the gravitational field.
  6. Butch

    What is "i"?

    For example, if I can find a system state that manifests charge, then I will have a particle, an entity that is "solid" so to speak. The photon in my model is just an oscillation of the influence of pair "ab" upon "c" it is a packet because the pair "ab" will return to a near quiescent state rapidly(in terms of orbit count, perhaps in less than a single orbit, dependant on the strength of the disturbance). This is not EM, but we know EM exists, I just need to find it.
  7. Butch

    What is "i"?

    True, one example of this type of leap is Albert in a speed of light vehicle. Inertia is a property intrinsic to the gravitational field, the combination of influence of the multitude of my entities. True enough in the classical sense, but this hypothesis is at an extreme, discrete entity or field becomes a question of the chicken or the egg. In this case they both just are, expression of properties is evident in the field, not the entity. I have introduced a concept, if you wish to contest it, first strive to comprehend it, then provide evidence against it... this is the critique that drives me. It feeds my endeavor, I need this from you. Yes but they are limited. Even the macro is limited, how will we investigate what lies beyond the observable universe? I do have faith that we will be able to do so, but it will take leaps such as this, leaps such as Einsteins and much less obvious leaps such as Copernicus (fool on the hill). I do, unfortunately, I may not live long enough... My only hope is that others will comprehend this concept and do some of the work. Do you comprehend my entities? Do you comprehend the idea that properties other than gravitation are expressed in the gravitational field, rather than in the entities, it is a foreign concept, not a complex concept. You are correct, just my opinion... I hope someday your opinion. Inertia is intrinsic to the field, not the entities. Changing the position of a single entity, changes the position of every other... given time, through the lines of influence that constitute the field.
  8. Butch

    What is "i"?

    Yes, however if you change the momentum of one member of a system seeking quiescence, all resist... you change the entire system by changing one member, some members just get the news later than others. The influence vectors are tensors, it is not evident in my model because it is static, with the exception of the orbitals "ab", however all members would have motion relative to all others (some quite complex), this motion would "bend" the vectors when travel time of influence is taken into account. I cannot demonstrate this with an accurate model yet, I have no units. This will have to wait on further devopment. They cannot combine or the universe would cease to exist... I do know of a way such combining could be prevented, it is simple... but I have reason to wait before presenting it. I will provide a hint however, the "big bang" and the "steady state" can co-exist... Hoyle ultimately is most correct however and deserves his Nobel prize. They are not contradictory, you fail to distinguish between my entities and the field they ptoduce. Influence vectors are 1 dimensional, tensors are 3 dimensional with a 1 dimensional cross section, a finite number of them cannot fill 3 dimensional space... an infinite number can.
  9. Butch

    What is "i"?

    They do resist change in momentum, in an infinite universe(which is the way I lean) you would be pushing against an infinite amount of force, fortunately it is an elestic collision (again, thanks to c) in a finite universe you would be pushing against a finite resistance. However, as I have said, these are human terms, all this pushing and pulling was predetermined. They exchange energy via the gravitational vectors(I still believe at some point they can be shown to be tensors). The only way energy could be shed is by a combination of multiple entities into one, or by reaching a quiescent state where there is no longer any momentum anywhere... if it where not for light speed the universe would attain absolute zero instantaneously, however since there is speed to light, Hoyle deserves his Nobel... (something for you to ponder). I agree, but I believe nature has fooled us. Try to get your head around it, but don't be in a hurry... let it sink in, or you will experience that strange buzzing sensation, that indicates overwork. The resistance to a change in momentum is intrinsic to the gravitational field, it occurs because influence between the entities travels at light speed. If it was instantaneous, the universe in unison would push back with equal force instantaneously, as it is, it pushes back proportionately to the strength of the gravitational field/time. My model does not show this, my model was only to show that my miniscule entities could generate a gravitational wave at light frequency in packets. My entities really are at the threshold of existence, it is better to think of them as a source of the gravitational field, the gravitational field is where everything is happening. My entities alone are nothing, really absolutely nothing... the only thing that makes them something is the gravitational field they produce. Perhaps this will help, if there were a countable infinity of my entities, there would be no gaps in the gravitational field, every bit of it would be criss crossed by lines of gravitational force. If there were a finite number all that is the physical universe would be connected by those lines of gravitational force, there would be gaps, but they would be completely undetectable. Or as far as my model goes, between a and b there is nothing, absolutely nothing, no particles... only the lines of gravitational force. Comprehension is difficult because I have done something unheard of in science, I leapfrogged to an extreme, the micro extreme... It is a valid leap however, because our tools of observation are running out. My hypothesis may be wrong, but my method of developing it, is where we must go. If such a hypothesis is found to be correct, physics will need only proceed then to the macro, and it is my belief that is infinite... perhaps someday a leap must be taken there also.
  10. The fool on the hill, sees the sun going down, but the eyes in his head see a world spinning 'round.

    1. Show previous comments  4 more
    2. Butch


      As I research it on web, it says mainly that no 2 fermions, in some and no 2 electrons in an atom for others... I have always gone the way of fermions. It does hold significance for my hypothesis... my enties could have same numbers since they have only gravitation, but the result would be catastophic... I believe I know however, why that can't happen.

    3. joigus


      Why don't you ask a question about the Pauli exclusion principle? 


      You can ask your question at:


      I would refrain from bringing up your a and b theory again, as the thread on that has gone down. 

    4. Butch


      Yes, I understand Pauli just fine, also, It was never my intent to debase the standard model... quite the contrary! If I can find EM expressed in my hypothesis, I will have a "road map" to guide me to connection with the standard model via relative quantities. 

  11. Butch

    What is "i"?

    They all have equal gravitation (a force of attraction), they are all pulling on one another, seeking quiescence, the state where all are in a balance, this is of course is absolute zero... it is not going to happen(although it could if information were passed instantaneously, thank goodness for c) so the gel continues to jiggle and the universe goes on... Which brings up an interesting thought... Since my entities have only apparent mass, could 2 of them at some point have equal numbers? If they did, they would condense into a single entity and energy would not be conserved... There is resistance to a change in momentum, remember apparent mass is a result of the gravitational field, not an intrinsic property of my entities, they have only gravitation. We perceive action and reaction, what is actually happening is an ongoing reaction we call the universe... but in human terms(which is not quite accurate) if you impel a single entity you impel them all, the resistance to change in momentum is the combined resistance of the entire universe... but in reality, cause and effect are just the ongoing jiggle of the gel. As I said... comprehension and investigation, this is more difficult to comprehend than is obvious at first glance.
  12. Butch

    What is "i"?

    Nope, no joy... I do need an actual gravitational model rather than just a representation of influence... do not think I can accomplish this with desmos. Thank you for your time, I think our discussion is at and end for now. I hope I have at least stirred some interest. You guys are awesome. PM me if you have advice.
  13. Butch

    What is "i"?

    I will repost with math. Mass as far as my entities are concerned is the concensus of all influence by all others in the universe... the entities do not resist change in momentum, rather the gravitational field created by all of the entities dictates their position. They have apparent mass, but they independently do not have a property "mass". If you could isolate one of my entities, it would be massless. Only by comprehension and investigation. I believe you do comprehend now... You are certainly much more the physicist than I (I know, quite the understatement) perhaps you could find just a little time? By the way, I did do a model with the whole of the system "ab" in motion relative to "c"... no phase shift due to framing. Have you any idea where I might find a persistent shift in phase of "ab" using my model? Ahh perhaps as an orbital?... I'm off to see the wizard! Again thank you all so much.
  14. Butch

    What is "i"?

    I thought I had sent you a link to my blog, I apologise... You are my favorite "cattle prod" on this site, I greatly value your critiques. I did not say it had charge, just polarity... I try not to miss anything as I develop my model... I don't think trivial exists here. Interesting, yes, it has multiple properties... mass I can accept, as in my model mass is a result of the gravitational gel, I mentioned earlier... Charge is an issue, however perhaps my "ab" pair will exhibit charge in my coming model, if so, it might very well be an electron. By the addition of two curves. Pure weirdness! Note in the pair "ab" no matter the eccentricity of the orbits (I have attempted to insert a slider in my desmos model for this, still working on that) an observer from "a" or "b" would "see" the complimentary entity remain at a constant distance, the closer they are the greater the gravitational influence and the slower time passes. Don't know that it has significance, but I don't want to miss anything. There is no strong or weak here, just gravity, the entities are not actually massless as they are constituents of that "cosmic gel" I have mentioned, but certainly their mass is minimal, so gravity may appear very strong, but strength... hard to define here other than how it relates to other parts of the model. They are constituents which can never be detected, they are so primal that we will never have a hammer to hit them with, so if a particle is composed of a simple system of these entities, we see it as having no underlying structure... I hope however that you get my point that an entity with multiple properties, must have underlying structure.
  15. Butch

    What is "i"?

    "ab" "c" is a vector it has direction and amplitude. Yes, that is everything! "How it fits any known features of paricles" As I have stated, I think the next big piece of the puzzle is charge. Is it possible charge appears with framing as a result of movement of the entire "ab" system relative to "c"? Any orbit has polarity (right or left rotation). Whether or not this has anything to do with charge, I don't know at this point.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.