0

# How to understand the energy - momentum equation in a natural way

htam9876

1
Thu 24 Dec, 2020 06:48 pm
Okay, guys who are willing to touch the elephant in an alternative way go ahead with piggy.

The continued topic of the mass – space equation:
The derivation of the mass – space equation L ∝ 1/M from macroscopic angle could be seen in the thread “cosmos vs us”. Hereby, we derive it from microscopic angle.

First, there is a question, why the energy equation for a released photon is E = hγ in Quantum theory and need not to take the number of crests (n of λ, here n is a natural number) into account?
In X4 physical model, a released photon is just a section of electromagnetic wave, its energy E should ∝the number of crests (n of λ).
It implies that all released photons have the same number of crests (n of λ)? Temporarily suppose it is and see what will happen.
Next, we refer to the simplified physical model (circle kind standing wave). Unfold the standing wave, it turns into two released photons (for simplicity sake, just consider that it’s one released photon).

We watch the game in counter way, it’s one released photon turn into a standing wave.
And we got: standing wave which constitute all kinds of elementary particles have the same number of crests (note: nt of λt, when referring to travelling waves; and ns of λs, when referring to standing waves. The lower index “t” means travelling wave while “s” means standing wave in this context).

Next, we try to use the X4 physical model for elementary particle and the temporary conclusion of same number of crests in this chapter to calculate the radius of elementary particle.
Below, we calculate the central line of the helical track of layer instead of the helical track itself because the speed of light should be calculated on the central line. And the wavelengthλt should be the projective wavelength on the central line.
E = Mc² = 2hγt = 2hc / λt then:
λt = 2h / Mc then:
The radius of elementary particle is:
r = ntλt / 2π = nth /πcM
Because nt, h, π, c are all constants, we use a constant “a” for simplicity and a = nth/πc, then:
r = a/M
Namely, r ∝1/M. In fact, it’s the same meaning as L ∝ 1/ M ahead.
The existence of the mass – space equation does not depend on reference frame / movement / SR.

Liqiang Chen

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Thu 24 Dec, 2020 06:50 pm
This post is a bit odd.
First, piggy invites guys to take a look at the what coffin box from what CN said in piggy’s thread in PHF.

But if you are a guy who believes in the philosophy of touching the elephant, then please go ahead with piggy.
………………………………………………….
The Space – Frequency Equation:
Because r = ntλt / 2π, λt = c / γt, then: r = ntc /γt2π
Because nt, c, 2π are all constants, r ∝ 1 / γt, or γt∝ 1 / r
In general words, r ∝ 1 / γ, or γ ∝ 1 / r
This could be called the Space – Frequency Equation.
………………………….
Primary unified conception of energy:
First, Piggy has to move some relevant stuff here:
“As I illustrate ahead, “due to the existence of mass (or say gravity), the three dimension physical space is uneven.” The contraction or say in counter way the inflation of the three dimension physical space reflects the gravitational potential. The inflation of the three dimension physical space reflects the increase of gravitational potential.
At this moment, I pull in another thing, the mass- space equation to join in the fun: M ∝ 1 / L’ (note: I am habitual to use upper case letters in this equation because the lower case of L looks like a “1”) illustrates that the contraction or say in counter way the inflation of the three dimension physical space reflects the dynamic mass, in turn, reflects the kinematic energy Ek = mc² - m0c². The inflation of the three dimension physical space reflects the decrease of the kinematic energy.
For example, if you throw a ball from the ground to the top of the Pizza Tower, the inflation of the three dimension physical space (the relativistic size of the ball) reflects both the increase of gravitational potential and the decrease of the kinematic energy. That’s why the energy conserves (︱△U ︱= ︱△Ek︱ ).”

Actually, according to the space – frequency equation, the contraction or say in counter way the inflation of the three dimension physical space also reflects the internal energy.
For example, if you throw an elementary particle from the ground to the top of the Pizza Tower, the inflation of the three dimension physical space (the relativistic size of the elementary particle r) reflects the increase of gravitational potential, the decrease of the kinematic energy as well as the decrease of the internal energy. (︱△U ︱= ︱△Ek︱= h︱△γ︱ ).
Namely, the essence of the change of the gravitational potential and the kinematic energy of the elementary particle could be considered as the change of the internal energy, in turn, the change of the frequency of circle kind standing wave. (Note: this principle is also applicable to the released photon.)
Assume a free elementary particle stations in the infinite remote point from the Earth, the circle kind standing wave (simplified model) has a basic radium of “r0” and a basic frequency of “γ0”. When it approaches the Earth freely in the gravitational field, the gravitational potential decreased and the kinematic energy is generated and the internal energy increased:
︱U ︱= ︱Ek︱= h︱△γ︱
In this sense, perhaps it could be considered that the gravitational potential and the kinematic energy essentially are the change of the internal energy, in turn, the change of the frequency.
The zero point of gravitational potential defines in the infinite point is a natural choice.

And at this moment, piggy wants to talk about the problem of contraction of space in SR explicitly. The movement of an elementary particle (put aside the situation of a released photon temporarily) results in the kinematic energy (of that elementary particle). And the kinematic energy is equivalent to the increase of frequency of the circle kind standing wave (simplified model). According to the Space – Frequency Equation r ∝ 1 / γ, the contraction of space should be in all directions.

Liqiang Chen

Dec 25, 2020

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sun 27 Dec, 2020 07:36 pm
Actually, Einstein was the first guy who derived that the kinematic energy essentially is the change of the internal energy:
In Einstein’s SR, the kinematic energy Ek = mc² - m0c²,
The item mc² or m0c² is neither kinematic energy nor gravitational potential, but the internal energy.

Piggy just illustrates what’s the internal energy and how it is deposited.

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Wed 17 Feb, 2021 02:16 pm
In critical juncture of history, a guy either could be the promoting force of development of history or the obstacle.
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Fri 1 Apr, 2022 08:07 pm
The Base of Physics, touchy and feely 2
Due to the persistent and malicious disturbance of J – 10 bully bully in the philosophy forum, piggy moves this thread here and continue the research.
URL: https://able2know.org/topic/555934-1

Piggy’s posts in this thread will be in consecutive way. The materials is systematic basic thinking for reference to those guys who are willing to touch the elephant in an alternative angle only, before go ahead further to the new realms of research.
Thank you, guys.

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Fri 1 Apr, 2022 08:11 pm
Special analysis about the problem of the kinetic energy of a released photon, touchy and feely:

Nowadays, to address the problem of “according to the relativistic principle, when v → c, the kinetic energy of a particle Ek → ∞, why the kinetic energy of a released photon is not infinite”, those “authentic” guys resort to the so called “energy - momentum equation” and such statement as “for a massless particle, its energy E = pc”.
But the so called “energy - momentum equation” can have two forms:
Relativistic mass form: E² = p²c² + (m0c²)²
Non – relativistic mass form: E² = p²c² + (mc²)²
Both can derives “for a massless particle, its energy E = pc”.
The question here is: whether relativistic principle applicable to a released photon or not? We can’t get an explicit answer. In theory, it seems ambiguous. But in nature, there shouldn’t be something ambiguous.

Oh Lord, according to the analysis ahead, the so called “energy - momentum equation” is just a tricky math game, and no matter relativistic mass or non – relativistic mass is employed, the so called “energy - momentum equation” can be transformed into the form of energy – mass relation.
If you consider a particle is “massless”, then, its energy will be zero. Such “massless - energyless” particle is theoretically meaningless in physics. It does not exist in nature.

If you consider a released photon has mass, then, the game can move on.
Employing the non – relativistic mass form of the so called “energy - momentum equation” E² = p²c² + (mc²)² to calculate is not an appropriate idea because as illustrated ahead, this equation has problems. Moreover this scenario can’t reflect the spirit of the original question.
So, the kinetic energy of a released photon is destined to calculate according to the relativistic kinetic energy equation Ek = m c² - m0 c² with relativistic mass. when v → c, the dynamic mass m → ∞,Ek → ∞.But the fact is obviously not.

The “authentic” theory can’t find out an appropriate and explicit solution.
(to be continued)

Liqiang Chen

April 2, 2022

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Fri 1 Apr, 2022 08:15 pm
Special analysis about the problem of the kinetic energy of a released photon 2, touchy and feely:

(continued)
Again, piggy says that in Einstein’s era, people weren’t yet AWARE of the (effect of) PRESENCE and PROPERTY.

As piggy illustrated in the physical model in the physics thread: the MATTER STATE of a released photon is different from other particles.
Namely, the PRESENCE of a released photon is different from other particles. Then, of course the inherent PROPERTY of a released photon is different from other particles.
In piggy’s physical model, a released photon is a section of electromagnetic wave travels in straight line. But other elementary particle, such as electron, is “spherical electromagnetic wave”.

(When the electron is moving, according to the length contraction principle of SR, r decreases. According to piggy’s mass – space equation m ∝ 1 / r, the mass of the electron increases. According to the relativistic kinematic energy equation Ek = mc² - m0c², the kinetic energy of the electron increases. When v → c, r → 0, the mass of the electron m → ∞, the kinetic energy of the electron Ek → ∞. Of course, r never can reach 0 because that means the electron disappears, non - sense in physics. That’s why v can’t reach c.
A vivid analogy: A football can sit there. When you kick, it move; the more powerful you kick, it move faster.

Piggy derived the mass – space equation in situation of “spherical electromagnetic wave”.
The inherent PROPERTY of “spherical electromagnetic wave” of integrity of space – mass which reflected by the mass – space equation r ∝1/ M is not applicable to the released photon.
It can’t sit and must move in light speed c.
So, the physics rule v → c, r → 0, m → ∞, Ek → ∞ is not applicable to the released photon.

This method of treatment considers that the released photon doesn’t abide by the relativistic principle. Very explicit. No ambiguous.

Liqiang Chen

April 2 , 2022
Now piggy doubts whether the pig head understands physics or not as the what coffin box from what CN said in PHF in 2020:
In fact, shortly after piggy left PHF in 2020, a local guy stopped piggy on the street and insisted he had a physics question to ask me. Piggy just replied to that guy: “I know nothing about physics”. Bounce…

Piggy really doesn’t know when the First Order would decide to shout “execute”, and then piggy will entirely disappear in this cosmos.
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 5 Apr, 2022 07:47 pm
Fundamental natural relations vs relativistic principles 3, touchy and feely:

There might be a special situation that the relativistic factor “γ” ≡ 1.
Then, M = M0, L’ = L , △t’ = △t
It’s absolute situation.

This special situation is the inherent property of the released photon.
Namely, the PRESENCE, (exactly the terminology should be “matter state” in X4 Theory), of a released photon is different from other particles. Then, of course the inherent PROPERTY of a released photon is different from other particles.
Relevant material can be seen in previous chapters.

With the help of X4 physics model, it’s easier to understand.
First, recall the model of spherical electromagnetic wave: circle kind of standing electromagnetic wave on any normal cutting plane of the small sphere. The energy of the electromagnetic wave is confined on the small spherical surface (deposited) … (For details, please see relevant chapters ahead). We can imagine an equivalent section of electromagnetic wave travelling in circle. It can serve as the physics model of a “rest” photon.
Next, unfold the circle kind of standing electromagnetic wave on any normal cutting plane of the small spherical surface. We can imagine an equivalent section of electromagnetic wave travelling in straight line in a speed of c. X4 Theory considers it as the physical model of a released photon …
Because it’s just that thing, so, for a photon, E = E0, m = m0;
E = hγ, E0 = hγ0 (here “γ” is frequency), so, γ = γ0, and frequency reflects time, then, △t’ = △t;
The speed of light c = c0, c = γλ, c0 = γ0λ0, (here “λ” is wave length), so, λ =λ0, and wave length reflects3D space, then, L’ = L.

A vivid analogy: A moving football is the same “shape” as a sitting football; while a moving snake is not the same “shape” as a sleeping snake.

The key point of this chapter is the difference of matter states, which is something beyond Einstein’s SR.

Liqiang Chen

April 6, 2022

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Thu 7 Apr, 2022 05:55 pm
The core of black hole, touchy and feely:

The BB theory which considers that this cosmos came from a “singularity” can count as “standard” theory more or less;
The mainstream considers the core of black hole is also “singularity”.
That’s fun enough: a cosmos will pop up from a black hole at any time. Obviously it’s absurd.

Now, the mass – space equation can provide a perfect solution.
The affair of the core of the black hole is absolutely the affair of the PRESENCE. Then, in the new era, we can ask such a question: what’s the “inherent property” of such a PRESENCE though?
Piggy’s humble opinion is that it’s mainly of the mass - space integrity which reflected by the mass – space equation: r ∝ 1/ M.

According to my physical model for elementary particle, after a huge star collapsed, an extreme situation might happen: all atoms and even the elementary particles would melt down, its internal energy might gather on a small spherical surface. All matters including light would reorganize and the energy gather on such a small spherical surface after they fall into the black hole.
At such extreme level, physical theories such as Mass Point Dynamics, thermal dynamics
, etc, would no longer be applicable to describe it.
According to the calculation with the whole mass – space equation r = a / M:
0 < the radius of the core of a black hole < the radius of an elementary particle.

……………………………………………………….
Piggy trusts in more and more black holes will appear in cosmos and they can merge. More and more energy will be condensed.
According to the Mass – Space equation r ∝ 1/ M or the Energy – Space equation r ∝ 1/ E, the radius of the core of super black hole becomes even smaller. When M or E trends to infinite, r trends to zero: singularity. Cosmos doomed.

Liqiang Chen

April 8, 2022
Now piggy doubts whether the pig head understands physics or not as the what coffin box from what CN said in PHF in 2020:
In fact, shortly after piggy left PHF in 2020, a local guy stopped piggy on the street and insisted he had a physics question to ask me. Piggy just replied to that guy: “I know nothing about physics”. Bounce…

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sat 16 Apr, 2022 04:37 am
The shape of event horizon vs the core of black hole, touchy and feely:

Some “authentic” guys consider that the core of black hole is a singularity. It is theory only. Piggy wonders that what’s the shape of a singularity though?
The black hole image just showed a round black spot (event horizon). This is fact.

Sounds that piggy’s theory is in conformity with experiment.

Liqiang Chen

April 16, 2022
Now piggy doubts whether the pig head understands physics or not as the what coffin box from what CN said in PHF in 2020:
In fact, shortly after piggy left PHF in 2020, a local guy stopped piggy on the street and insisted he had a physics question to ask me. Piggy just replied to that guy: “I know nothing about physics”. Bounce…

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sat 16 Apr, 2022 05:52 pm
The “equivalent quantity” of anti matter problem in cosmos, touchy and feely

Once upon a time, piggy heard some people talked about the origin of cosmos on web: billions of years ago, “bang”…and high energy photons rushed out. Thereafter, each high energy photon decayed into a pair of positron and electron, etc. But actually, the fact we can see today is that there are much much much more electrons in this cosmos than positrons, etc. And then, those guys wonder where that equivalent quantity of anti matter gone? And then, they speculate this or that reason.

Piggy’s comment: that’s habitual thought, and then, inertial thought…why not change an angle of thinking? Why not doubt the root of that model?

Piggy’s humble opinion is as below:
Assume the bang boosted from a singularity;
The 3D space of singularity is zero, so it’s something without direction;
But a straight line is something with two directions;
So, it’s inappropriate to think that photons at the very beginning of the bang rushed out straightly alike they do from the Sun to the Earth nowadays;
The spherical surface (simplified as a circle) is something without direction;
So, it’s appropriate to think that spherical electro – magnetic wave rushed out first at the very beginning of the bang;
Then, the most basic 3D space appeared in cosmos;
Thereafter, photons were able to travel in straight line, and illuminated the cosmos;

In this sense, if equivalent quantity of anti matter (particle) occurred at boost point of the bang, annihilation would have made the bang backward, but photons could not rush out straightly at boost point of the bang. That means the birth of cosmos could never happen.
So, actually, “no equivalent quantity of anti matter (particle)” is one of the prerequisite of the birth of cosmos.

Liqiang Chen

April 17, 2022
What piggy can’t understand is the First Law of Cosmos which is created by the First Order (try every means to confine piggy as a self – half payment watchman in their small business to show up how glorious they are in the local Jiangmen city).

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sat 16 Apr, 2022 06:21 pm
Supplementary stuff to the chapter of “equivalent quantity” of anti matter problem in cosmos

Although a singularity is something without direction, it can’t be considered as a round shape. Even a small round ball is made up of many points. The important part of the word singularity is “singul”.
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 19 Apr, 2022 07:53 pm
The solution to the “twin paradox” in SR, touchy and feely:

“Time is controlled by internal energy of matter, so, time is the inherent property of matter.”
So, if we analyze brother A’s age, we should stand on the reference frame of brother A; if we analyze brother B’s age, we should stand on the reference frame of brother B;
△t ∝ E
The controlling element for the age is internal energy.
In the individual reference frame of the brothers, the internal energy of the brothers doesn’t change. So, the criterion of unit time △t doesn’t change in the individual reference frame of the brothers. Then, the increase of their ages is the same situation.
Then, the ages of the twins are ever the same.
The fun thing is that such “paradox” in SR is also reasonable. But it’s limited to the condition of relative movement. The kinematic energy does cause the increase of internal energy.
The affair of time or age is mainly the affair of oneself rather than the affair of others’ relative consciousness. It is controlled by the physical / substantial property of oneself.

But the situation in gravitational field is not the same.
Assume brother A stays on the ground of the Earth, while brother B is shot up into the sky in a spaceship. The gravitational energy of brother B increases and his internal energy decreases. The criterion of unit time deflates in the reference frame of the brother B. This is substantial / physical change due to the existence of the Earth. Then, the age of the brothers will be different. But this is not “paradox”.
The Earth – brothers system is not the brother – brother system.

Liqiang Chen

April 20, 2022
Now piggy doubts whether the pig head understands physics or not as the what coffin box from what CN said in PHF in 2020:
In fact, shortly after piggy left PHF in 2020, a local guy stopped piggy on the street and insisted he had a physics question to ask me. Piggy just replied to that guy: “I know nothing about physics”. Bounce…

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Wed 20 Apr, 2022 01:03 am
The speed of light (magnitude) in gravitational field again, touchy and feely:

In this chapter, piggy has a try to analyze the problem about the speed of light (magnitude) in gravitational field again with methods of the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY.

1. Start the analysis from the angle of inertial frames:
As illustrated in the chapter “The integrity of space – time, touchy and feely” ahead,
Touchy: c is light speed, γ is the frequency of light, λ is the wave length of light. Then: c = γλ
Feely: as piggy said ahead, the frequency reflects time. And wave length reflects 3D space. So, actually, the equation c = γλ above reflects the integrity of space – time. Space and time are not entirely independent variables but mutually affected.
Transform the above equation: γ = c / λ
Because light speed c is a constant, then: γ ∝ 1 / λ
Replace variables: △t ∝ 1 / L
This could be called the Space – Time equation. Piggy employed such special format to highlight the “inverse proportion relationship” between space L and time△t (criterion of time or say unit time). If space L contracts, then, time △t inflates; if space L inflates, then, time△t deflates.

Next, watch it in another relatively moving inertial frame: c’ = γ’λ’. If the speed of light (magnitude) c’ changes, we can’t guarantee the strict establishment of the “inverse proportion relationship” γ’ ∝ 1 / λ’, namely, △t’ ∝ 1 / L’ in math. Among γ’ and λ’ ,or say, △t’ and L’, one might be a constant. Then, such odd situation might appear: If space L’ contracts, time △t’ doesn’t inflate; if space L’ inflates, then, time△t’ doesn’t deflate.

But one of the basic principles of SR is "physics rule is equivalent" in different inertial frames. It’s a problem.

Now in the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY, we can analyze it from another angle.
Piggy considers “integrity of space – time” which reflected by the equation △t ∝ 1 / L is a fundamental natural relation, which is the affair of thefundamental PRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system.
Such fundamental natural relation is inherent property of matter and the most basic natural rule and should not change following movement. It’s the affair in the fundamental PRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system. It’s also a problem here.

So, theoretically, the speed of light (magnitude) c’ must not change, namely, c’ = c.
This point has been verified by experiment. Relevant material of the experiment can be found in textbook. A moving meson decayed and released a photon, the devices detected the speed of light (magnitude) didn’t change.

2. From the angle of non - inertial frame (situation of acceleration):
Take a look at that “authentic” rabbit Dandan’s humble opinion first.

Now in the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY, we can analyze it from another angle.
Piggy considers “integrity of space – time” which reflected by the “inverse proportion relationship” △t ∝ 1 / L is a fundamental natural relation, which is the affair of the fundamentalPRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system.
Such fundamental natural relation is inherent property of matter and the most basic natural rule and should not change following movement (including situation of acceleration). It’s the affair in the fundamentalPRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system.
The “inverse proportion relationship” △t’ ∝ 1 / L’ should establish in situation of acceleration.
So, according to the analysis in item 1, theoretically, the speed of light (magnitude) c’ must not change, namely, c’ = c.

3. The situation of gravitational field:
According to Einstein’s idea of “gravity is equivalent to acceleration in effect” and the analysis it item 2, the speed of light (magnitude) should not change in gravitational field.

Now in the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY, we can analyze it from another angle.
Piggy considers “integrity of space – time” which reflected by the “inverse proportion relationship” △t ∝ 1 / L is a fundamental natural relation, which is the affair of the fundamentalPRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system.
Such fundamental natural relation is inherent property of matter and the most basic natural rule and should not change following interaction. It’s the affair in the fundamentalPRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system.
The “inverse proportion relationship” △t’ ∝ 1 / L’ should establish in situation of gravitational field.
So, according to the analysis in item 1, theoretically, the speed of light (magnitude) c’ must not change in gravitational field, namely, c’ = c.

Velocity vs space – time, touchy and feely:

Actually, the velocity of light (c = γλ) is in the supreme position and in CONTROL of space – time (frequency γ reflects time while wavelength λ reflects space). It is not subjected to the CONTROL of space – time. The conception of velocity is based on space – time, no matter in the dynamic situation or in the gravitational situation. But the velocity of light c is not subjected to the CONTROL of them. So, the velocity of light c is a frame invariable and does not change in gravitational field.

But the velocity of a small stone is essentially not the same case as that of the light. It is not capable to CONTROL of space – time. The conception of velocity is based on space – time, no matter in the dynamic situation or in the gravitational situation. So, the velocity of a small stone is subjected to the CONTROL of space – time. Then, the velocity of a small stone is a frame variable according to the traditional Lorentz transformation in SR, and it will change in gravitational field after you open your hand.

Actually, “the speed of light (magnitude) doesn’t change” is a standard / legislation in “authentic” scientific community. Take a look at physicsquest’s comment in PHF:

Liqiang Chen

April 20, 2022
Now piggy doubts whether the pig head understands physics or not as the what coffin box from what CN said in PHF in 2020:
In fact, shortly after piggy left PHF in 2020, a local guy stopped piggy on the street and insisted he had a physics question to ask me. Piggy just replied to that guy: “I know nothing about physics”. Bounce…

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Mon 25 Apr, 2022 06:22 pm
Annihilation, touchy and feely:

Below is a question for smart researchers in physics: why annihilation can happen between the positron – electron pair while can’t happen between a proton and an electron?
There might be all kinds of speculations in theories. Now, in the new era, piggy has a try to explain it with method of the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY. Below is calculation in piggy’s physics model, for reference only:
In piggy’s physics model, any elementary particle such as positron, electron, proton, etc are spherical electromagnetic wave (simplified physical model as the “circle kind standing wave”)
(For details, please see the unit charge model in the thread “matter vs anti matter” in the philosophy forum).

The calculation is according to the “whole” mass – space equation r = a / M (note: a = nth/πc. Because nt, h, π, c is the same for a positron and an electron, then, “a” is the same proportionate constant for a positron and an electron. For details, please see relevant chapters in the physics thread in the philosophy forum), the mass M of a positron is the same as an electron, then, the radius of the positron is the same as the electron. The situation could be imagined as “two counter vortices of the same size encounter”. (Note: this is vivid analogy only. People in Southern Pole see a clockwise spinning Earth, while people in the Northern Pole see a counter clockwise spinning Earth. But the spacial property of spiral chirality would not change following the orientation of observation. Left – handed is left - handed, right – handed is right – handed. In piggy’s physics model, matter – anti matter or positive charge – negative charge are directly reflected by spiral chirality. The fact is that the property of charge would not change following the orientation of observation. An electron is just an electron, no matter people watch it in Southern Pole or Northern Pole of the Earth.)
(Note: In the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY we can put aside movement in some analysis. So, here M actually is rest mass M0. )

Then, of course, in the case of a proton and an electron, the radius of the proton is much different from the electron because their mass is much different. The situation could be imagined as “two counter vortices of much different size encounter”.

Liqiang Chen

May 25, 2022
Perhaps piggy has to accept the First Limitation claimed by the First Logic (the First Order) to do a security guard in the Jiangmen city. Unfortunately, piggy is old and is in bad health (due to the cruel and all around dark sanction of the First Order for so many years), piggy even is not able to secure his own old bones. That means piggy die hard logically. Bounce…

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Mon 25 Apr, 2022 07:41 pm
Reference material in respect of annihilation:
Woody’s comment in PHF: “anti analogy”

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 26 Apr, 2022 05:52 pm
Problem about the definition of gravity, touchy and feely:

As illustrated ahead, space – time is integrity. So, in philosophy, either space or time is enough to describe the existence of gravity (inflation / deflation of space or time). Either one method is okay.

But space and time are different things in cosmos / different conceptions in physics. So, in philosophy, the employment of both space and time to describe the existence of gravity (“the curvature of space - time”) is a more complicated method.

Piggy’s humble opinion is that the conception of “the curvature of space - time” can not serve as the modern definition for gravity.

It’s not about which method of description is better. Any method of description is limited ability. A vivid analogy: From the front view, people can draw two holes on the face of the pig, while from the side view people can draw a long nose. The method to describe a pig is not sole. Different method / angle of description can demonstrate different property. But neither view could represent the pig head entirely.

Liqiang Chen
May 27 , 2021
Perhaps piggy has to accept the First Limitation claimed by the First Logic (the First Order) to do a security guard in the Jiangmen city. Unfortunately, piggy is old and is in bad health (due to the cruel and all around dark sanction of the First Order for so many years), piggy even is not able to secure his own old bones. That means piggy die hard logically. Bounce…

0 Replies

### Related Topics

Relativistic mechanics - Discussion by Granpa
Tesla's take on relativity - Discussion by gungasnake
Cesium clocks??? - Question by gungasnake
Why c, revisited still again - Question by dalehileman
Is there a relativist in the crowd - Question by dalehileman
relativity - Question by alexjlaonnae
Does light have Mass? - Question by peter jeffrey cobb
simple relativity question - Question by ralphiep