Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Proving Einstein's Unified Field Theory

If you would like to know more, you can email Rose directly at or Butler at

Although I will be including this formula (among many others) in a future published book, I am presenting this original formula now as a way to begin bridging sociological theory and physics. These ideas are my own and based solely on the knowledge I've accumulated over the years and my sociological analysis. Feedback is always welcome, as I do not believe I have all the answers. Rather, we must all work together to learn more about our human nature. 

Before you read this, you should know that I developed this base theory in a classroom in which we were discussing suicide, suicide rates, who commits suicide, etc. So, many of these examples are dealing with serious social isolation. I believe these principles can be applied to lesser social issues, such as depression, PTSD, etc. My book will discuss many other social theories. Some of these theories relate directly to the self, others do not. 

A quick Google search showed me that scientists started trying to merge physics with other disciplines back in the 1970s and 1980s. My theory attempts to merge physics and sociology. My knowledge is mostly in psychology, sociology and writing. But I have studied basic physics in high school, so the base knowledge of how the world works has stayed with me.
Even if this theory will be revised as I learn more, my hope is that it may help this type of research and the merging of physics and other disciplines in the future.

This theory uses two laws of physics: the law of relativity and the law of motion. (If any physicists are reading this, feel free to correct me on misuse!)
     1)    The law of relativity (“All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics”) will allow us to see laws of physics within the frame of reference of our social world. 
    2)     The law of motion states that “there is always an equal and opposite reaction” when one body exerts force on another body.  This already applies to motion, and I am applying it also to emotion and our force/willpower on the world around us. 

Let’s start with relativity. I learned in a psychology class that everything we process is bounced off a reference point in our mind. This is how I explain it: So first you learn what a circle is. Then a square is just a circle with lines. And a triangle is a square with only 3 lines. Teaching children is basically just giving them a single reference point (such as ABC’s or adding/subtracting) and allowing them to compare everything else to it. Figuring out the difference between two relative points (such as a circle and a square) allows you to deduce a definition for each (circles are round, squares are lines). Once you have one concept, you can build (but triangles only have 3 lines, therefore it’s not a square even though it has lines). That’s also how scientists form hypotheses.

So what is the first reference point in our social lives? Our parents. When a child has a “bad” relationship with their parents, they are unable to develop a strong, singular reference point. How can we learn multiplication without addition or subtraction first? Parents give us our first taste of humanity: they teach us how to express emotion, how romantic relationships work (or sometimes, how they shouldn’t work), what it means to be a parent, even how to speak and think logically. We learn social norms, gender roles, religion, etc. Having a reference point that is fractured by a negative or non-existent relationship with parents can lead to an inability to determine who you are. Many times, the child is too occupied trying to recover from trauma, they can’t even begin to figure out who they are. Many times, parents push false truths they have carried with them (my mother would tell me regularly that ALL men are "bad" and to never trust them). This type of false expectation is taught to impressionable children with disastrous results, often distorting their relativity with the world as well. 

This lack of relativity leads to lacking a sense of “self.” Lacking a sense of “self” leads to depression. Depression leads to suicidal thoughts.  

So here, I’m suggesting that:
Negative relationship w/ parents à lack of base social relativity à lacking a strong sense of “self” à depression à suicide

This might seem farfetched, but I pulled this information from a Sociology lecture. I kept developing my theory because the lecture kept fitting my theory.

The Widow Effect:
Unlike young people, elderly couples have an intense relativity with their partner. Their sense of self is deeply rooted in the person they’ve spent so many years with. I believe this to be especially true of couples who have watched their children grow and leave the nest. This reminds the couple that they are in this world together, no matter how much attention they’ve had to give their children. In the end, it boils down to the two of them, again. And when one of them dies suddenly, their sense of self may be shaken or even broken, because it was a strong sense of connected self at that point. This loss of self leads to depression (which leads to a compromised immune system) and possibly suicide.

So as a second example, I am suggesting that:
A strong marriage à intense relativity à strong sense of connected self à loss of relativity causes loss of self à depression à suicide or natural death due to compromised immune system

Prisoners and Soldiers
Prisoners and Soldiers may experience a similar pattern. Like troubled youth, some prisoners and soldiers may have turned towards their professions because they lacked a sense of relativity with society (instead of/in addition to lacking relativity with their parents). They did not seem to “fit in.” Regardless of why or how they ended up there, once they are deep in the prison or war culture (where you may have to kill to protect yourself or commit other “sinful” acts that general society may reject), they are able to develop an intense sense of self. Each of these institutions purposely takes your individualism away. The social hierarchy still exists, but you are much more like your bunk buddy than any average American. Your sense of self is embedded in the culture you’re in, and intensified because of the lack of individualism in that culture.

So these prisoners and soldiers are in prison or war with an intensified sense of self. And then they come “home.” For some, that home never accepted them. For others, it’s a wakeup call and they have to realize that American culture is a very different reality than war reality. But every experience is unique, so these men may not be affected at all, or only to varying degrees of depression and never suicide. 

My point is this: some prisoners and soldiers go back home and are hit with a unique culture shock. The culture has probably not changed for their family and friends, so "home" expects you to be the same person you were before. Instead, they get culture shock and this culture shock can lead to feelings of isolation, losing an intense sense of self by being put into a more individual-based mentality, etc. For individuals who never felt like they "fit in" at home, these feelings may be multiplied exponentially, depending on levels of social support. This may lead to depression and possible suicide. Again, based on experience and motivations, many men may not experience this. (wanna research this? hit me up at

So here, I suggest that:
Prison or military culture à relativity with other, similar people à intense sense of self à returning home may result in loss of sense of self for some à depression à suicide

This can also be applied to gay people (and everyone else on the  spectrum) and those in intense pain, or immigrants or anyone who identifies with a minority group.

For example, to question your sexual identity in our culture is not very accepted. This conflict with society makes many people feel like outsiders, which can lead to questioning who you are. In other words, your sense of self. Whereas others may completely identify with those around them, someone who feels like an outsider in society may have a harder time developing a sense of self, due to lesser relativity on a social scale. Especially when most of this country seems so caught up on “sin” and your entire existence is basically a sin to a lot of the country. Like, wow. If someone told me that my core self (i.e., being gay if I were) was a sin, I would have a shaken sense of self too.

And those in intense pain may not be able to think of anything other than the pain. That would shake my sense of self because as Buddha said, life is suffering. But suffering is meant to be temporary. If it’s not temporary, and your life becomes permanent pain, you can no longer act within the laws of relativity.

So with the instance of pain, I suggest that:
Pain (or brain swelling like we discussed in class) à lack of relativity because pain is so strong à can’t keep your sense of self à leads to depression à suicide.

Noble Suicide
My discussion of noble suicide takes this premise: noble suicide comes from an intense, but false sense of self. By this, I mean their values and sense of self have been replaced with the embodiment of the ideals they follow. For this, it could be the ideal of the Seppuku, which was an “unquestionable demonstration of their honor, courage, loyalty and moral character.”  Or, it could be the ideal of a terrorist organization that has convinced the suicide bombers that they are the hand of justice. Or, the sense of self could have been replaced by a cult leader whose sense of self was strong enough to replace the weaker sense of self in some poor twenty-something who wandered into hippyville during the ‘60s and doesn’t know what the real world is like. I think that’s how the Moonies happened. I watched a TED talk where a woman thought she was just protesting violence or something. She lacked a sense of self, so she was knee deep into a cult before she even realized she had adopted their views. And those cult and terrorist leaders target people with a weak sense of self. 

I watched a brief documentary of scientology, in which a journalism infiltrated the lower ranks. First, she was innocently asked to take a personality test on the street. After being lured to an office, she is told by a receptionist that they will now go over the results. The receptionist says that, based on this personality test, the journalist is terrible at communication, is a cold person, etc. According to a psychologist in the documentary, they read the test wrong. An actual reading would prove the journalist to be a great communicator, warm, friendly, etc. First, they broke her sense of self by telling her that something was wrong with her, and then used various psychological techniques to make her pay for classes to "fix herself." (watch the documentary here.) 

Not going to waste my time on this, but same principle. It should be obvious to anyone on this page. If it's not obvious to you, feel free to email Butler at 

This post is based in sociological theory, with inspiration drawn from many fields of study. I do not have an official study prepared, but I have a lot of experience in psychoanalysis and concept theorizing. These ideas have been developing for nearly 20 years. I have finally found a way to express them. I hope that some of what I say rings true for you, and if it doesnt, feel free to email me! I love discussing things and I look forward to discussion.
Suggested Conclusions:

    1) Cult mentality takes away self
    2) Terrorist organizations (extreme mentality and social dissonance) take away self
    3)  Lack of parents can often prevent strong formation of self early in life
    4) Homeless, prisoners and soldiers may lack a sense of self because they are isolated from society and lack mass relativity

This also suggests that social support allows for relativity. Relativity allows each individual to develop a sense of self. Applied to physics....

F = ma

So in physics, force = mass X acceleration. Here is how I use the law of relativity to scale physics to our social world.

What is mass in terms of our social world? That, I believe, is the Sense of Self. You gain or develop a sense of self (aka Mass) over time and through relativity between yourself and others. Every person has experiences, emotions, etc. But not every person has a strong sense of self. This mass can also be depleted by environmental factors if your sense of self is not strong enough to negate those effects. Being brainwashed by a cult leader or terrorists is a good example of self/mass depletion based on the environment. If your sense of self is more like sand, it will fly away when external forces push on it. Those external forces can replace your sense of self (and make you into a suicide bomber or make you drink cyanide, etc.). But if your sense of self is strong like metal, it won’t budge. This is the complexity of our social mass, our sense of self (more research when I finish the theory book and gain access to a lab). It develops over time, density fluctuates, and it doesn’t develop at the same time in everyone. [Note: I will have an entire chapter on how social mass can be thought of as yin/yang, aka dynamic equilibrium] [Other note: if Michio Kaku is reading this, is H2O like yin/yang?]

Acceleration, then, is your Intent (the thoughts you entertain towards reaching your goal). Every thought you have has an action potential, just like every neuron firing in your brain has an action potential. [Note: if you haven't taken a psychology course, don't worry. the book will explain] 

So your Will = Sense of Self X Intent. Those with a strong sense of self would probably be able to identify their wants, needs and goals more easily than something with a weak sense of self. Therefore, mass (sense of self) helps determine acceleration (intent).

This acceleration (Intent) is why some people go into college right after high school, and others wait 5 years. Those who purposely push their life in one direction (such as college) have a strong sense of self, and their strong sense of Intent is influenced by their self mass. Their Intent accelerates them forward in their life. Those who wait a few years to go to college may not have a strong sense of self and wish to travel and discover the world (and themselves) first. They lack acceleration in a straightforward and predictable direction (such as college) and choose to focus on their sense of self first. Their intent is directed inward at developing their sense of self, not outward towards society.

Others will have been pushed toward college by their parents, and their sense of self will be a false one. Three years into their degree, they may realize they hate the thought of being a lawyer and their sense of self has been clouded by the expectations of their parents. So they switch majors and search for themselves.

So mass is our sense of self and acceleration is our intent. These two multiply to create our force. But what is force in our social world?

Sociological Analysis 
At this point, I would like to turn away from physics and apply this to the real world, because it only applies socially.
Assumption: Your social Force is relative to those around you, because what else could a social force be relative to?

I have a stronger sense of self than most people around me, so I’m not swayed easily. At the center of my “self” is the concept of Libertarianism. [Note: this concept is different from the political party.] Basically, it is in my core sense of self to be passive. Live and let live, so long as everyone lives and lets me live, I have no qualms. It is a very pacifistic sense of self, meaning my Intent only applies to my life. So although I have a strong sense of self (say 9 out of a 10 scale), my Intent toward society is only relative to my personal future (because I identify Libertarianism as a core of my “self”). I’m going to say my overall intent is a 5 out of 10 because I have a strong intent toward myself (5/5) while my intent toward society is non-existent (0/5), as my intent really only relates to me and passing classes right now. [Here's the thing: when I wrote this, my intent towards society was 0/5. now, I want to help those around me discover themselves and compassion. For the sake of example, I'll base this theory on my feelings when I wrote this]
I have very little Force on society because my intent towards society is minimal, even if I have a great Mass.

So F = MA, F = 9 X 5, F = 45.

My theoretical “force” on society is 45 according to the theoretical 100-number scale I just made up.

So let’s take a cult leader as an example. Cult leaders must have a strong sense of self on some level, even if it’s a false ideology separate from their real self. Whatever cult-like thing they’re trying to push into the world has taken over their sense of self. They ARE their ideas, and they have to be projecting this sense of self if they are forming a cult based around it. 

Say they have a Mass/Self of 10/10. Their acceleration must also be high if they are actively recruiting, AKA They must have a strong intent to recruit for their cult. So if their intent is 10/10 and they are doing everything they can to recruit impressionable people, their Force = 10 X 10. That cult leader would have a theoretical Force of 100, whereas I would only have a theoretical Force of 45. And that’s how cult leaders are so successful. They probably only target people with a Force less than, say, 30. [Note: another chapter will be spent on malicious intent vs benevolent intent]

One more example: domestic abuse relationships. My roommate told me earlier that “assholes” know they’re assholes. More than that, they accept it and their strong sense of self is rooted in this negative social trait. It seeps out into their relationships, especially romantic ones. 

So an abusive man has a strong sense of “self,” probably one that makes him angry at his girlfriend. But he also has possessive tendencies, or any other negative motivator, bolstering his “intent.” When a strong sense of self (especially the malicious “self” of an "asshole") develops a strong, possessive and malicious intent, the force is significantly greater than the girlfriend who has a lower sense of self and will. An abusive relationship forms when the Force of one person is greater than the force of another, due to “self” and “intent.”

Asshole: F = 7 X 7 = 49
Pacifist girlfriend: F = 5 X 3 = 15
(these numbers are theoretical and can be changed to suit various actual relationships)

Abusive Relationships happen if the self of the abuser is rooted in negativity. If he has a positive force, he won’t want to beat his girl up. If he has an overpowering and malicious force, he beats the girl up. (Of course men are not the only abusers. But I do think men tend to have a stronger Intent because of the patriarchy and/or testosterone). Malicious Intent requires additional discussion, but I will save that for later.

Moreover, this holds true to the law of (e)motion: equal and opposite reaction. When a more powerful force hits a less powerful force, its reaction is to move in the direction of the more powerful force. AKA, the asshole. When the victim’s Intent gets so strong they choose to leave, their Intent overpowers the abusive force and the relationship ends. The law of motion applies to our social world when one person’s force meets another. It all depends on whose force is greater at the time. What is force? Sense of Self and Intent.

All of this was written in one day with a couple edits. I would love to develop it over time, and when I do, it’s getting published. I don’t care if it’s a $5 digital download that no one takes seriously, if I can develop these and teach people what a sense of self is, how they can develop one, etc., I could help end abusive relationships and suicide. The mass consciousness of our world thinks it’s “to scale.” But the general population doesn’t realize that applied physics could end their abusive relationship and make them happier, by scaling the laws of physics to our social world.  

If any of this rang true to you, please stay tuned for many other sociological analyses. 


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Mission Statement

At Butler and Rose Consulting, we aim to provide quality advice, discussion and consulting to individuals and groups.

Topics covered include, but are not limited to: personal growth, business and academic goals, relationship advice and questions, and even general venting because we know that, sometimes, venting just helps. We're up for chatting, too, so feel free to send shower thoughts our way!

Butler and Rose Consulting holds respect and anonymity at very high standards. We aim to give advice free of judgement and bias, and encourage our peers to do the same when commenting on posts and questions. Disrespectful posts and trolls will be deleted.

From time to time, we will post some of the stories and questions we receive as blog posts. This is done to foster discussion and help us all understand the world a little better. All names will be changed to ensure anonymity.

You can ask questions and send entries to the blog directly or by emailing
Butler at or
Rose at

All entries will be reviewed by both consultants, but you can send an email to a specific consultant if you wish. To decide which consultant may be better suited to help you, visit Butler's profile page here and Rose's profile here