What is "i"?

[joigus]

Scalars and vectors are particular (if trivial) examples of tensors, so don't worry too much about that. Every time you say 'vector' or 'tensor' to talk about an invariant or scalar, it makes your argument so much less convincing.

You should worry a lot more about how your model fits any known features of particles.

I still don't know what you mean by 'polarity'.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Butch said:

The part you are not getting is that any mass is composed of these entities.

You could have led with this description 

Is there any evidence that electrons are composite particles?

11 hours ago, Butch said:

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

What else does it depend on? Inverse square can’t be the only dependence. How does the gravitation get to be “very strong”

11 hours ago, Butch said:

and time dilation is propotianate.

How does time dilation figure into this?

 

 

11 hours ago, Butch said:

Let me repeat, these entities compose everything that is the universe, they are the most primal possible a point source of gravity, nothing more.

They are everything, but nothing more.

 

11 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

They attract via gravity, which is inherently weak, yet inexplicably their gravitational interaction is very strong. They comprise particles that have no internal structure, but they are not themselves particles, and they have no properties but the particles they comprise do have properties. And the model you’ve shared explains none of this.

Why don’t we call them fairies? Because this is much more magic than science

[Butch]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Scalars and vectors are particular (if trivial) examples of tensors, so don't worry too much about that. Every time you say 'vector' or 'tensor' to talk about an invariant or scalar, it makes your argument so much less convincing.

You should worry a lot more about how your model fits any known features of particles.

I still don't know what you mean by 'polarity'.

"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. 

[joigus]

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

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. 

Polarity is directional; charge is a scalar (it has no direction).

[Butch]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You could have led with this description

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.

27 minutes ago, joigus said:

Polarity is directional; charge is a scalar (it has no direction).

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Is there any evidence that electrons are composite particles?

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What else does it depend on? Inverse square can’t be the only dependence. How does the gravitation get to be “very strong”

By the addition of two curves.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

How does time dilation figure into this?

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

They attract via gravity, which is inherently weak, yet inexplicably their gravitational interaction is very strong. They comprise particles that have no internal structure, but they are not themselves particles, and they have no properties but the particles they comprise do have properties. And the model you’ve shared explains none of this.

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.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I thought I had sent you a link to my blog, I apologise

As you’ve been reminded, sending people to another site in place of discussion isn’t in keeping with the rules. You can never assume anyone has done so.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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.

None of that suggests it’s composite 

Quote

By the addition of two curves.

That’s not really an answer, and those curves don’t look like inverse-square functions 

1 hour ago, Butch said:

the entities are not actually massless

Quote

My gravitons are massless

Magic!

1 hour ago, Butch said:

They are constituents which can never be detected,

Then how can your conjecture be falsified?

[Butch]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not really an answer, and those curves don’t look like inverse-square functions 

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.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then how can your conjecture be falsified?

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.

[Butch]

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.

Just now, Butch said:

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.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

And I’m asking how this happens. 

If they are affected by all other fairies, then certainly they should be affected by one other fairy, and a fairy-fairy interaction could be described. You seem to start this already, with two fairies being described, but the next step is explaining what, precisely, is exhibiting the 1/r^2 behavior. It can’t be a force like in Newtonian physics, because these do not resist a change in momentum.

How does your model get to where they have an “effective mass”? 

 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And I’m asking how this happens. 

If they are affected by all other fairies, then certainly they should be affected by one other fairy, and a fairy-fairy interaction could be described. You seem to start this already, with two fairies being described, but the next step is explaining what, precisely, is exhibiting the 1/r^2 behavior. It can’t be a force like in Newtonian physics, because these do not resist a change in momentum.

How does your model get to where they have an “effective mass”? 

 

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.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

45 minutes ago, Butch said:

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

Pull? Do you mean a force? How can you have a force on an object that does not resist a change in momentum?

How do they shed energy to get to (or approach) absolute zero?

 

Quote

 There is resistance to a change in momentum,

How can one piece together you model when you keep posting contradictory information? They do not resist a change in momentum, but there is a resistance to a change in momentum. You can’t have both.

 

Quote

remember apparent mass is a result of the gravitational field, not an intrinsic property of my entities

I remember you asserting this, but not where your model shows this.

 

Quote

 

, 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.

When things are A but also not A, that makes comprehension very difficult.

This is a fundamental problem of qualitative claims. You can say things that are inconsistent. With proper math, this doesn’t happen. One reason physics insists on models.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Pull? Do you mean a force? How can you have a force on an object that does not resist a change in momentum?

How do they shed energy to get to (or approach) absolute zero?

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).

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Pull? Do you mean a force? How can you have a force on an object that does not resist a change in momentum?

How do they shed energy to get to (or approach) absolute zero?

 

How can one piece together you model when you keep posting contradictory information? They do not resist a change in momentum, but there is a resistance to a change in momentum. You can’t have both.

 

I remember you asserting this, but not where your model shows this.

 

When things are A but also not A, that makes comprehension very difficult.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How can one piece together you model when you keep posting contradictory information? They do not resist a change in momentum, but there is a resistance to a change in momentum. You can’t have both.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I remember you asserting this, but not where your model shows this.

 

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.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

Why would it be infinite? Force is a vector, so an isotropic distribution will add up to zero; for every one at some distance and direction, there would be one at the same distance in the opposite direction. 

 

13 hours ago, Butch said:

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).

If all they are doing is exchanging energy with each other, the total stays the same. No decrease in temperature. As you say, these interactions are elastic, so there is no dissipation.

Some could combine into one, perhaps, but this would require others to have a lot of energy. It might be interesting to model how many could combine, and under what conditions, and for how long. If a high-energy entity comes along, it would break such a combination up.

13 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

It’s impossible to get my head around your contradictory claims. 

 

13 hours ago, Butch said:

 

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.

Does it show this? What is a “light frequency”?

 

13 hours ago, Butch said:

My entities really are at the threshold of existence,

More hand-wavy twaddle

13 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

But you also have suggested they produce spin and charge and mass, while having none of these properties. 

13 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

Why would there be gaps? 

Gravity is now undetectable?

13 hours ago, Butch said:

Comprehension is difficult because I have done something unheard of in science, I leapfrogged to an extreme, the micro extreme...

IMO you haven’t done science. You don’t have a model in any meaningful sense, and this is far from “unheard of”

13 hours ago, Butch said:

It is a valid leap however,

That’s not for you to determine

13 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

You need to have a model and testable predictions 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why would it be infinite? Force is a vector, so an isotropic distribution will add up to zero; for every one at some distance and direction, there would be one at the same distance in the opposite direction

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If all they are doing is exchanging energy with each other, the total stays the same. No decrease in temperature. As you say, these interactions are elastic, so there is no dissipation.

Some could combine into one, perhaps, but this would require others to have a lot of energy. It might be interesting to model how many could combine, and under what conditions, and for how long. If a high-energy entity comes along, it would break such a combination up.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s impossible to get my head around your contradictory claims. 

They are not contradictory, you fail to distinguish between my entities and the field they ptoduce.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why would there be gaps? 

Gravity is now undetectable?

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.

[joigus]

14 hours ago, Butch said:

They do resist change in momentum,

They don't have inertia? How come?

15 hours ago, Butch said:

They exchange energy via the gravitational vectors

Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions.

In physics, you can't just utter a sentence and hope it will make sense somehow. Example: space-time gains acceleration via vacuum energy. Yeah right, but that responds to a mathematical model.

You haven't shown us a mathematical model, however crude. You have a motion cartoon and a bunch of intuitions.

15 hours ago, Butch said:

because our tools of observation are running out.

That's not what I hear. LIGO's still active, ATLAS at CERN, James Webb Space Telescope, and so on, and so on.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

you haven’t done science. You don’t have a model in any meaningful sense, and this is far from “unheard of”

True, one example of this type of leap is Albert in a speed of light vehicle.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

They don't have inertia? How come?

Inertia is a property intrinsic to the gravitational field, the combination of influence of the multitude of my entities.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions.

In physics, you can't just utter a sentence and hope it will make sense somehow. Example: space-time gains acceleration via vacuum energy. Yeah right, but that responds to a mathematical model.

You haven't shown us a mathematical model, however crude. You have a motion cartoon and a bunch of intuitions.

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.

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions.

In physics, you can't just utter a sentence and hope it will make sense somehow. Example: space-time gains acceleration via vacuum energy. Yeah right, but that responds to a mathematical model.

You haven't shown us a mathematical model, however crude. You have a motion cartoon and a bunch of intuitions.

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.

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

They don't have inertia? How come?

Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions.

In physics, you can't just utter a sentence and hope it will make sense somehow. Example: space-time gains acceleration via vacuum energy. Yeah right, but that responds to a mathematical model.

You haven't shown us a mathematical model, however crude. You have a motion cartoon and a bunch of intuitions.

That's not what I hear. LIGO's still active, ATLAS at CERN, James Webb Space Telescope, and so on, and so on.

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).

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You need to have a model and testable predictions 

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not for you to determine

You are correct, just my opinion... I hope someday your opinion.

32 minutes ago, Butch said:

They don't have inertia? How come?

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.

[Butch]

53 minutes ago, Butch said:

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.

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.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Inertia is a property intrinsic to the gravitational field,

No. Inertia is locally indistinguishable from the gravitational field. (Equivalence principle.)

1 hour ago, Butch said:

True enough in the classical sense,

(My emphasis.)

I was talking quantum mechanics, which the way we know Nature to behave.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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.

That's not how science works. If you want to have people consider your new concept, first understand all that's been already understood. Doesn't seem like you really understand inertia, gravitation, and their intimate relationship; or 'quantum' vs 'classical', or chirality/helicity, or gauge charge. You want to build physics from scratch, and there's no change in the world that this will ever work. If you think it will, as Swansont said, make a prediction, or a derivation of some long-known feature.

 

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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).

Neither Einstein, nor Copernicus, were fools on a hill. They were very knowledgeable about the status of physical theories at their time. All experiments are limited, of course. Do not ever trust any statement that represents itself as unlimited.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions.

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.

29 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's not how science works. If you want to have people consider your new concept, first understand all that's been already understood. Doesn't seem like you really understand inertia, gravitation, and their intimate relationship; or 'quantum' vs 'classical', or chirality/helicity, or gauge charge. You want to build physics from scratch, and there's no change in the world that this will ever work. If you think it will, as Swansont said, make a prediction, or a derivation of some long-known feature.

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.

37 minutes ago, joigus said:

Neither Einstein, nor Copernicus, were fools on a hill. They were very knowledgeable about the status of physical theories at their time. All experiments are limited, of course. Do not ever trust any statement that represents itself as unlimited.

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.

53 minutes ago, joigus said:

No. Inertia is locally indistinguishable from the gravitational field. (Equivalence principle.)

I am speaking locally concerning my entities, they have the property of gravitation which produces the gravitational field.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Butch

[Butch]

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.

[joigus]

13 minutes ago, Butch said:

Any properties that I am able to discover via my hypothesis will be properties of the gravitational field, not my entities.

Can you formulate your hypothesis in a simple sentence?

I'll give you an example of a hypothesis:

Quote

"[...] the path taken by a ray between two given points is the path that can be traversed in the least time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_principle

[Butch]

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

Can you formulate your hypothesis in a simple sentence?

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

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

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

But this hypothesis is manifestly incomplete. You assert something can be constructed, and you do not provide even the faintest idea of how this construction can proceed. So the obvious follow up question to your 'hypothesis' is,

How?

On the contrary, Fermat's principle, is either true or false experimentally. It makes no constructive assumption. The time is either minimal or not. There are no shady areas in that statement.

[Butch]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

But this hypothesis is manifestly incomplete. You assert something can be constructed, and you do not provide even the faintest idea of how this construction can proceed. So the obvious follow up question to your 'hypothesis' is,

How?

On the contrary, Fermat's principle, is either true or false experimentally. It makes no constructive assumption. The time is either minimal or not. There are no shady areas in that statement.

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.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

I think it was clear that your a-b system cannot be a photon.

Gimme a derivation of Einstein's field equations, and I will pay more attention, I can assure you. So far, my focus is on what's wrong with your idea, rather than what could be right.

Spin-statistics, give me something.

Do your particles satisfy Pauli's exclusion principle?