Jump to content

Butch

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-4 Poor

About Butch

  • Rank
    Protist
  • Birthday 10/13/1955

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://begytheory.blogspot.com/2021/05/start-with-nothing.html?m=1

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

9656 profile views
  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 sy
  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
  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 wai
  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
  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

      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

      joigus

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

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

      You can ask your question at:

      https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/9-quantum-theory/

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

    4. Butch

      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
  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
  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 cu
  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.