What is "i"?

[Butch]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

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?

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.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Butch said:

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.

If they have no mass or resistance to change in momentum, then it has no resistance to change in momentum. Adding zero an infinite number of times still leaves you with zero.

Quote

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

You don't have a model. You don't make the distinction between any of this. You are co-opting physics terminology, but then assigning behavior that is not consistent with existing physics.

e.g. your interaction is not gravitation, because we already have a model for that. Your particles are not gravitons. 

You can't discuss momentum or mass because your interaction does not follow the laws of physics. If your entities had no mass they must travel at c. They would not collect anywhere. You need new physics to explain other behavior.

If you have a field, then make a model using that field. But until you have a model what you have is a story. And it's not a good story, because chapter 2 says one thing, and then chapter 5 says something different, like it was written by someone else and they were trying to get out of a plot hole, without any effort at continuity.

And stories aren't enough for discussion in speculations.

Case in point:

Quote

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.

No mass means infinite acceleration under the influence of a force. So either it's nonsense, or you abandon Newton's laws of motion, meaning you come up with a formulation where you can discuss this, with all the equations that allow one to calculate the results you are insisting on.