0

# Cosmos vs us

Thu 24 Sep, 2020 07:56 pm
We all have a beginning as a BB, after that, the body expanded and we became adult. Piggy found that he has stopped growing (perhaps guys not yet). It’s surely that piggy will contract in the next decade, at last disappears in this world…This seems to be the genera lphilosophyof this world. That’s why piggy believes cosmos has a beginning as well as an end.
If cosmos has no an end, perhaps we will not have to die in logic (or say, just because cosmos has an end, so we has to do the same, as a part of the cosmos, we can’t escape the general rule).
If cosmos has an end, where does the present come from? It must have a beginning.
RECYCLE.

• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 23,627 • Replies: 249
Topic Closed

htam9876

0
Mon 28 Sep, 2020 06:19 pm
When something can’t be observed directly, we can try to infer it theoretically from different angles or using different theoretical ways…and see if contradiction happens.
Actually, the question of whether cosmos has an end can be calculated with mathematical – physics method.
According to another form of the “mass – space equation” (details see the thread “Is the sun round or thin?” in the Relativity column of the physics forum): L ∝ 1/ρ, when the whole cosmos contracts, its mass density ρ will increase and its size L decrease. When ρ → ∞, L → 0. That’s a singularity.
In physics, ρ = ∞ is meaningless. But a singularity is something between "existence" and "non - existence". All physics laws and rules were generated after the appearance of cosmos (existence of cosmos). So, the singularity appears at the ending of cosmos is reasonable.
And naturally the singularity is the (re)starting point of cosmos.
The present existence of the cosmos is fact.
Recycle.
………………………………………………
Transform L ∝ 1/ρ into ρ ∝1/ L.
When a massive object in this cosmos such as a star collapsing, the size L decreasing, while the mass density ρ increasing, If ρ reaches infinite, it will be meaningless in physics. So, to some degree, it will have to stop collapsing. That’s to say, the core of a black hole can’t be a singularity. It might be a small round ball.

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sat 17 Oct, 2020 02:53 pm
The starting point of the Big Bang should be a singularity. If the core of the black hole is also a singularity, then what’s the difference between these two kinds of singularity? There shouldn’t be two kinds of singularity, non – sense. If they are the same kinds of singularity, then, a black hole can generate a cosmos at any time…That’s fun.
Cosmos can be fashion, passion and inflation, but physics must be step by step.
The mass – space equation reflects the basic physics property of 3D physical space, the most basic thing in nature.
.......................
Piggy heard a British philosopher talked about black hole in another site. It's from a fun angle but no contradiction:
"I have been pondering a question which is perhaps related to this post.

It is my understanding that in the intense gravitational field around a black hole,
Time, as viewed from "our" reference point a safe distance away is slowed.
In the limit, as the black hole reaches singularity, time (from our point of view) within the hole stands still.

Firstly have I got this interpretation correct?

If so then does that not imply that (from our external point of view) a collapsing massive object will never reach full singularity
because the time it takes to reach singularity will tend toward infinity as the gravitational field tends toward infinity.

My point is that to the "universe at large" (whatever that means)
the collapsing mass will reach a certain point (the point where it creates a black hole event horizon),
and then it will (appear to) stop collapsing because the time inside the event horizon is "stopped" as viewed by an external observer.

But surely that means that to any observer outside the event horizon, the final collapse toward a singularity will never be completed.
"
htam9876

1
Thu 22 Oct, 2020 02:18 am
Piggy reorganized the materials about the mass – space equation and put it here for reference.

The Concept of the Mass – Space Equation

Below is a thought experiment to demonstrate the insufficiency of the traditional Lorentz transformation.
When someone stays stationary relative to the sun, he will see that the sun is a round ball. When he moves to the sun in constant velocity (the sun moves to him relatively), he will see that the sun is an oval ball/thin due to the "length contraction effect" in the direction of movement.
The effect of gravity is even in all directions, so the sun is round; if the sun is thin, that means the effect of gravity is not even in all directions. Physics rule is not equivalent in different inertial frames? But one of the basic principles of SR is "physics rule is equivalent" in different inertial frames...

Actually, there is another very simple thought experiment to demonstrate the inherent flaw in Einstein’s SR: assume an object is moving in speed v in frame S, the same angles with all axis x,y,z for simplicity. Then, in frame S, the components of speed v along x,y,z axis are the same. While in frame S’, because the Lorentz transformation formulas in the cross direction is not the same as that of the along direction (the moving direction of frame S’), that’s mean the components of speed v’ along x’,y’,z’ axis are NOT the same. Then, physics rule is not the same in different inertial frames.

Next, introduce the mass – space equation.
The equation for the traditional Lorentz transformation of length contraction is: L’ = L /γ
The mass – speed equation is M = γM0
Then, ML’ = M0L so, L’ = M0L / M
Because M0 and L are constants, then: L’ ∝ 1 / M. This might be called the “mass – space equation”. (note: I am habitual to use upper case letters in this equation because the lower case of L looks like a “1”).
Mass M is a scalar, so the equation reflects the contraction of size in all directions due to the increase of mass.
It seems that the “mass – space equation” is a derived one. But its components “mass” and “space” are most basic physical elements. Actually, it should be a more basic equation than the equation for the traditional Lorentz transformation of length contraction and the mass – speed equation. It describes more basic natural rule.
During the course of exploration, people perhaps touch the leaves of a tree first, then the sticks, and so on the stock, at last the root. But for a tree, the root is the most basic.
From the angle of the physical substance of the object itself, perhaps the research might be more in depth and sufficient.

If we resort to the space contraction in all directions (Lorentz transformation is the same in all directions) which is disclosed by the mass – space equation, the above flaw can be amended easily.
Perhaps the natural logic should be “the movement in 3D space causes the increase of mass and the increase of mass causes the size contraction in all directions”.

Current in Different Inertial Frames

Blow is a third thought experiment to demonstrate the insufficiency of the traditional Lorentz transformation.
Assume a part of stable DC circuit with the shape of “L” rests in inertial frame S: section 1 horizontal; section 2 vertical; wire cutting face is a square for convenience. Another inertial frame S’ moves rightward at velocity u. The purpose of this thought experiment is to verify whether the “length contraction effect” is in all direction as the “mass – space equation” shows or just in the moving direction as traditional Lorentz transformation shows.

First, analysis resorts to traditional Lorentz transformation.
In frame S:
For section 1, I1 = n1qv1; for section 2, I2 = n2qv2
(Here take the moving direction of electron as the direction of current for convenience, n is the density of free electron in the wire, q is the charge carried by electron, v is the moving velocity of free electron.)
I1 = I2, n1 = n2 = n, v1 = v2 = v
In frame S’:
For section 1, △x’ = △x / γ , △y’ = △y , △z’ = △z
V’ = △x’△y’△z’ = △x△y△z / γ = V / γ (V’ is volume in frame S’, V is volume in frame S)
So, n1’ = γn1 = γn
Lorentz transformation of velocity:
v1’ = (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c² )
I1’ = n1’qv1’ = γnq (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c²)
For section 2, also V’ = V / γ
So, n2’ = γn2 = γn
Lorentz transformation of velocity:
v2’ = v2 / γ(1 - u v1/c²)
I2’ = n2’qv2’ = γnq v2 / γ(1 - u v1/c²) = nq v2 / (1 - u v1/c²)
I1’ ≠ I2’
Physics rule is not equally applicable in inertial frame S’.
Next, resort to the space contraction in all directions which is disclosed by the “mass – space equation”.
In frame S’:
For section 1, n1’ = γ³n1 = γ³n
v1’ = dx’ / dt’ = (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c² )
I1’ = n1’qv1’ = γ³nq (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c²)
For section 2, n2’ = γ³n2 = γ³n
v2’ = dz’ / dt’ = dx’ / dt’ = (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c² )
I2’ = n2’qv2’ = γ³nq (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c²)
I1’ = I2’
Physics rule is equally applicable in inertial frame S’.

Of course, the “L” shape DC circuit scenario can be verified. Just fix two electric meters in the sections and watch if their values are the same. It’s not a difficult experiment to do.
……………………………………………………………..

The mass – space equation L’∝ 1 / M discloses Lorentz transformation is the same in all directions. So, there is no what “longitudinal mass” or “transversal mass”. The appropriate conception should be the “dynamic mass” (is the same in all directions).

The mass – space equation can be transformed to be M ∝ 1 / L’. It means the contraction of space leading to the increase of mass. So, the employment of “dynamic mass” / “relativistic mass” is reasonable.

The mass – space equation L’ ∝ 1/ M contains just two most basic physics quantity: space and mass. It’s the most basic equation in cosmos and reflects the most basic natural rule. Its existence does not depending on SR. So, shake off the effect of reference frame, it will be L ∝ 1/ M.
The “mass – space equation” can transform into another form: L ∝ 1/ρ, where ρ is mass density. The derivation course is as below:
Assume V is a certain value of any finite volume, then: L ∝(1 / V)﹝1 / (M / V)﹞,
1 / V is a constant; M / V = ρ

Cosmos can be fashion, passion and inflation, but physics must be step by step.
The mass – space equation reflects the basic physics property of 3D physical space, the most basic thing in nature.

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 27 Oct, 2020 06:25 pm
(The stuff in this post is already in the thread “problem about the definition of gravity” in the Gravity forum. It’s also relevant in this thread.)

Assume a simple system: a planet and a spaceship, excluding all surrounding elements. The coordinate system for observer is built on the planet. Assume the spaceship moves to the planet freely from remote place ∞. The length of the static spaceship in remote place ∞ is L, the rest mass is m0 and the dynamic mass is m. The mass of the planet is M.

When the spaceship moves freely to the position r away from the center of the planet, the velocity is v and the length is L’,
Then, Ek = mc² - m0c² = GMm/r , γm0c²﹣ m0 c ² = GMm/r
So, 1 / γ = r m0c²/( GMm + r m0c² )
Let ÿ = 1 / γ, then, ÿ = r m0c²/( GMm + r m0c² )
L’ = L / γ = ÿ L
When r →∞, ÿ →1, L’ → L; when r → 0, ÿ → 0, L’ → 0.
If no gravity existing between the spaceship and the planet, when the spaceship moves freely to the planet in constant velocity, the length of the spaceship will not contract more and more seriously.
So, the more and more serious contraction of the length of the spaceship during the course of the free approaching could be considered as the effect of gravity.

Illustration:
The length of the spaceship (L or L’) is just the specific demonstration of 3D physical space.
Due to the existence of mass (or say gravity), the three dimension physical space is uneven in the radial direction of the planet; Determined by the master (the planet) and reflected by the objective (the spaceship). Or say, the three dimension physical space inflates in the radial direction of the planet. The further away from the planet, the more serious the inflation will be.
……………………………………………….
(A vivid analogy is the density of air of the atmosphere of the earth, which is thicker at the bottom while thinner at the top.)
…………………………………………….
Gravitational redshift phenomenon:
If light travels from the ground to the top of the Pizza Tower, its wave length will increase. A physicist’s explanation is “It is the energy of the photon that reduces in doing work against the gravitational field.”
I don’t care too much whether his representation is sufficient enough. What I care is the alternative method of explanation:
Due to the inflation of the three dimension physical space, the wave length of light increases when it travels from the ground to the top of the Pizza Tower.
A vivid analogy is to put a wave length in a balloon. When the balloon inflates, the wave length will stretch.

………………………………………………..
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︱ ).

Liqiang Chen
Oct 28, 2020

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 27 Oct, 2020 06:31 pm
There might be a big deal here.
Because the conception of inflation of 3D physical space can effectively explain the phenomenon of gravitational red shift as well as the energy conservation, it should be considered as a true natural property.
In the observation of recession of galaxies, the red shift phenomenon is actually consisted by two parts: the red shift due to Doppler effect as well as the red shift due to inflation of 3D physical space. The mass density of the cosmos now is much smaller than that of billions of years ago. According to the mass space equation L ∝ 1/ρ, the 3D physical space of the cosmos is much different than that of billions of years ago. That means when light from a remote galaxy reaches the Earth today, its wavelength has been stretched significantly. If calculation ignores the effect of inflation of 3D physical space, it might result in two mistakes / false impressions as below:
1. According to the Doppler effect formula f’ = f * c / (c + vr), f is frequency of light, c is light speed and vr is the receding speed of the galaxy, some galaxy might seem to receding faster than light speed.
2. The more remote the galaxy is, the more significant the wavelength of light has been stretched due to inflation of 3D physical space. Cosmos is expanding accelerated. Liqiang Chen
Oct 28, 2020

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Thu 29 Oct, 2020 03:00 am
Should piggy surrender to the First Order (the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city)?

0 Replies
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 10 Nov, 2020 08:20 am
There might be something obscure here too.
In the gravitational field, where the 3D physical space inflates, time deflates.
When cosmos expands, its mass density decreases. According to the mass space equation L ∝ 1/ρ, the 3D physical space of the cosmos inflates. The inflation of the 3D physical space should have the same physical property. That means when cosmos expands, time deflates.

Actually, according to SR:
The equation for the traditional Lorentz transformation of length contraction is: L’ = L /γ
The equation for the time dilation is: △t’ = γ△t (△t could be considered as mean time unit)
Then, △t’L’ = L△t
Because “L△t” is a constant, we got △t’ ∝ 1 / L’. This might be called the Time – Space equation.
The time – space equation △t’ ∝ 1 / L’ contains just two most basic physics quantity: time and space. It’s also the most basic equation in cosmos and reflects the most basic natural rule. Its existence does not depending on SR. So, shake off the effect of reference frame, it will be
△t ∝ 1 / L.
The criteria of time is dynamic in the evolution of cosmos.

When cosmos contracts, its mass density increases. According to the mass space equation L ∝ 1/ρ, the 3D physical space of the cosmos deflates. That means when cosmos contracts, time inflates. When ρ → ∞, L → 0, time → ∞. Singularity.

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Fri 11 Dec, 2020 02:09 am
Piggy today found that the third party which host my pictures has hidden them. and they lost presence here.
Piggy will supplement the pictures as soon as I got another site to host them.
Sorry, guys.

1
Fri 11 Dec, 2020 06:19 am
@htam9876,
we can wait
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Tue 15 Dec, 2020 08:16 pm
Supplement of picture:
Piggy had a similar post in PHF in which the diagram of current in different inertial frames could be seen:

1
Wed 16 Dec, 2020 04:23 am
@htam9876,
But what do you make of the Minkowski space argument?
htam9876

1
Wed 16 Dec, 2020 08:41 pm
The Minkovski flat space – time is an ideal / approximate description which ignored the true physical / cosmic environment.
Almost all of the present theories about space – time ignored the obscure effect caused by the true physical / cosmic environment.
The direct method to verify whether the obscure effect caused by the true physical / cosmic environment exists is astronomic observation of remote galaxies. Are there any calculations of the receding velocity of the remote galaxies according to red shift due to Doppler effect exceed light speed? (after elimination of miscellaneous affection by such factors as interstellar dust)
……………………………….
By the way, could you suggest a safe site to host pictures? Thank you.

1
Thu 17 Dec, 2020 06:49 am
@htam9876,
SmugMug.com is one possibility, and it’s free.
I just wish A2K had enough capital to store pix on-site so it wasn’t necessary to link off site.

But I do understand that the user base here (about a dozen, not counting sock-puppets and drive-by shooters) does not justify storing our culinary feats and dick pics for eternity.

@mods: maybe only store jpegs for a month or so, then flush'em?
htam9876

1
Sun 20 Dec, 2020 06:24 pm
Thank you for your help. Really and really.
......................................................
Next, piggy has a try to supplent pictures.
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sun 20 Dec, 2020 06:25 pm
The inflation of space vs redshift diagram: 0 Replies

htam9876

1
Sun 20 Dec, 2020 06:38 pm
The current in different inertial frames diagram: 0 Replies

Albuquerque

0
Mon 21 Dec, 2020 04:25 am
Who are the blessed "dozen" that I cannot see them? I want to meet them if you would be so kind to introduce me as frail and flawed as I am.
0 Replies

htam9876

1
Wed 23 Dec, 2020 02:08 am
(The stuff in this post already existed in the thread “matter vs anti - matter” in the philosophy forum. Perhaps it’s relevance to this thread. Piggy moves it here for reference.)

Philosophy of the energy – mass relationship:

We know that, in SR, Einstein derived the relationship of energy - mass c².

Below, we explore from another angle using another theory and see if we can get it.
Construct a model of spherical electromagnetic wave: circle kind of standing electromagnetic wave on any normal cutting plane of the small sphere. (You can imagine the sea waves in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans…Of course, this imagination is just for easy to understand the conception of the spherical model). Then, the energy of the electromagnetic wave is confined on the small spherical surface (deposited) and will not demonstrate the property of energy. X4 Theory considers this spherical model as a model of elementary particle. It demonstrates the property of mass only.
Next, unfold the circle kind of standing electromagnetic wave on any normal cutting plane of the small spherical surface. It travels in straight line in a speed of c. X4 Theory considers it as the physical model of a released photon. The property of energy can be demonstrated.
Because it’s just that thing, what different is just the moving speed of c in straight line. Then, the relationship between the energy of the released photon and the mass of the circle kind of standing electromagnetic wave on any normal cutting plane of the small spherical surface is “c” in logic.
We notice that this not yet enough to represent the mass – energy relationship because the circle is just a line on the spherical surface while the whole model is a small spherical surface.
Because the simplest relationship between “surface” and “line” is “square” in logic, the simplest relationship of energy - mass should be “c²” in logic.
(Note: Actually the elementary particle model in X4 Theory should be a spherical surface. But for intuition sake, the “circle kind standing wave” can serve as a simplified model. And for convenience in calculation in chapters below, the simplified model is applied. And it’s considered that the energy on the spherical surface be converted entirely into the “circle kind standing wave”.)

When the spherical electromagnetic wave demonstrates only the property of mass, it doesn’t mean that it has no energy;
The same principle, when the released photon demonstrates the property of energy, it doesn’t mean that it has no mass.
It’s just that thing. So, for a photon, E = E0, m = m0.

0 Replies

htam9876

1
Wed 23 Dec, 2020 02:16 am
(The stuff in this post already existed in the thread “matter vs anti - matter” in the philosophy forum. Perhaps it’s relevance to this thread. Piggy moves it here for reference.)

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.

0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

1. Forums
2. » Cosmos vs us