# Butch

Senior Members

792

1

1. ## 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. ## 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. ## What is "i"?

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

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

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

4. 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. ## 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. ## 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. ## 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. ## 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. ## 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.
16. ## What is "i"?

In the above, nearly should be merely... autocorrect
17. ## What is "i"?

The part you are not getting is that any mass is composed of these entities. I stand corrected in the use of scalar... the values used are relative, I have no defined units to work with yet. The mathematical form is the inverse square, with of course time dialation... not expressed in my simple 2 dimensional model, it is worth noting however that within the system "ab" gravitation is very strong and time dilation is propotianate. They do not congregate anywhere, they are where they are and where they will go is determined by the collective of all these entities in the universe. Let me repeat, these entities compose everything that is the universe, they are the most primal possible a point source of gravity, nothing more. A note, all I sought to introduce here is that a small enough system of gravitational entities could produce gravitational waves at light frequencies... most of the questions you have put to me I have already considered. Grandiose as they seem, I have simply begun my exploration at one end of the span of possible physics... the micro end. The entities I have presented are the most primal I could devise. They have no dimension, no spin, no mass, no energy, no charge, no polarity. All of that is in how they relate via gravitation. The model I have presented is nearly the simplest possible configuration... the pair "ab" being the simplest. I wish to build upon that, next I would endeavor to discover the manifestation of charge and EM. But first it is most important to me that you grasp this concept. I ill build a model with slightly more complexity for that purpose. Do not ask what the configuration is for any of the standard model components... I simply do not know at this point, with the exception of the photon, I believe I have that and will provide a better demonstration in my next model.
18. ## What is "i"?

The greater the mass, the greater the number of my entities constitute that mass. The strength of the entities does not vary, it is absolute and the same for all, I do not say it is infinite because the entity is a single point, gravitational influence is only evident as is relative to other such entities.
19. ## What is "i"?

The vectors of influence between each and every one of my entities, that influence is only gravitational and nothing else. All particles are a system of these entities, the values are scalar until they can be tied to the standard model, then we will have real units. My next model will demonstrate the particle and wave nature of light... if you can grasp what I am trying to communicate it will also reveal the nature of c.
20. ## What is "i"?

It is the collection of all of them influencing every other, a cosmic gel constantly seeking quiescent. It is solely a gravitational interaction which produces every other... What we perceive as different types of interactions, different types of fields etc. are manifestations of these interactions. I am working on a model today to demonstrate one facet of this, I should have it complete by tomorrow. My idea encompasses the universe in its entirety, my model is local. My model is not perfectly accurate, because I cannot encompass infinity or the vast finite. I will be producing more models.
21. ## What is "i"?

Yes, and I followed with great interest... then it was discovered that it had colors... imo then it has underlying structure, the most primal entity cannot have multiple expressions, only a combination of those entities.
22. ## What is "i"?

They are the source of mass, mass is the overall influence of all of them. They are THE constituents of the universe. The motion of each individual is a consensus of the influence of all upon each. They are the only constituents of all matter. The influence vectors collectively is the gravitational field, mass is here, dimension, spin even polarity... what is missing is charge. I have a vague idea on that one, as systems of my entities have motion relative to each other a system such as "ab" may have a persistent phase shift via framing and that might be the charge of the system... I am looking for the tools I need to investigate this idea, perhaps because my mathematical proficiency is not great enough to do so, without such tools, if you would like to help... greatly appreciated. Spin is rather difficult to explain and grasp... I will work on it. In the meantime, the spin is not apparent within a system, but rather as a result of the systems influence on the rest of the members in the universe. To grasp this idea consider a universe consisting of nothing but the influence vectors (a countable infinity perhaps) and my entities being nodes of convergence of these influence vectors.

24. ## What is "i"?

A more massive particle would be composed of a greater number of these entities, remember they are single points... only an interacting system of them has dimension. They travel at a speed determined by the "i" of every other of my entities in the entire universe. The apparent mass is also determined by the same. They do not congregate where we have mass or photons... they are the most primal entities of our universe, they lie at the threshold of existence, they are all that our universe is. They are not particles, they have no dimension, no spin, no wave function, only apparent mass... and gravitation. Influence one and you influence all. And yes, an interacting system ("ab") has polarity, spin and wave function (when nudged, producing photons). I believe a more complex model would demonstrate that the "influence vectors" are tensors. But what is "ab"? It is the most primitive system that can be built with my entities... is it a neutrino? An electron? I do not know at this point. "I" may never know...
25. ## What is "i"?

Perhaps influence vector is a better term for now. Thank you.
×