[dleviwing]

Guille;
I think Antonio is referring to the transformation of inertial reference frames for velocity and acceleration. This basically allows us to form a relationship between Newton's second law and Einstein's E=mc^2.

I'm more curious to see the "Time independent" concept for accelerated reference frames.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE but what about when there is gravity?

But gravity are always secondary forces. They always exist as long as there is mass. By the way there is no theory about quantized mass except the proposal I sent to you about quantized mass the same as Planck mass.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao But gravity are always secondary forces. They always exist as long as there is mass. By the way there is no theory about quantized mass except the proposal I sent to you about quantized mass the same as Planck mass.

I checked the paper and a few related ones too.

Now, if mass can be independence of gravity or of any primary force, shouldn't you be breaking the principle of equivalence (as intertial mass is not the same as relativistic mass)?

By the way, why does an H necessarily have 1/6 space charge, and what is the nature of space charge?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE if mass can be independence of gravity

Gravity can never be independent of mass. The quantized spacetime or let's say the space charge does not have a property of mass only a property of quantized local acceleration at very small distances but to accurately measure it is to be limited by Planck's constant. We cannot measure anything less than Planck's constant, it is the quantum of angular momentum. This is the same that we cannot separate the H+ from the H- and the smalles fermion is a neutrino made of 1H+ and 1H- to separate the space charge H+ and H- is the same as saying cutting the neutrino into halves. Not even a laser photon can do it. Since a photon is made of 4 neutrinos. The laser photon knife is too dull by a factor of 4.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE why does an H necessarily have 1/6 space charge, and what is the nature of space charge?

Why does the die have 6 sides? Why does the die have 8 corners? The 8 corners of a cubic die represent the 8 directional properties of space charge.
1. left-up-front
2. left-up-back
3. right-up-front
4. right-up-back
5. left-bottom-front
6. left-bottom-back
7. right-bottom-front
8. right-bottom-back

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Why does the die have 6 sides? Why does the die have 8 corners? The 8 corners of a cubic die represent the 8 directional properties of space charge. 1. left-up-front 2. left-up-back 3. right-up-front 4. right-up-back 5. left-bottom-front 6. left-bottom-back 7. right-bottom-front 8. right-bottom-back

So the relationship between the sides and the corners is explained by 6 is the disposition for direction and 8 is the possible permutations. Now, what do the edges mean then?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE what do the edges mean then?

Of course! The connections between an H+ and H- but not all edges can be connected.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Of course! The connections between an H+ and H- but not all edges can be connected.

And do thes eocnnections define the dimensionality of the Hs? Or their LOEs?

And in what part of a particle is the mass, in the edges, in the sides, in the corners, in the interior...? Is there any inner-structure within the particles? Of course, if they are quantas they should be the most basic thing, but still for example are there inner lines sort of 'edges' inside the structure, that connect the sides that are opposite to each other and thus an't have edges conecting?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Post 14 Since a photon is made of 4 neutrinos. The laser photon knife is too dull by a factor of 4.

Antonio;
You may wish to rethink this concept or give reference to what leads you to believe it. To me it sounds completely bogus an not supportable by any science.

[baudrunner]

But gravity are always secondary forces. They always exist as long as there is mass.

The problem with this reasoning is that gravity always exists as long as there is space.

In the discussion of the electromagnetic forces of repulsion and attraction (which by the way have nothing to do with gravity) you neglect to note that electrons are always in motion, so the relationship that they have with protons are that what they lack in mass they make up for in velocity, so that is why the charges are balanced, and why time is balanced. In electric current, the electrons are again in motion, at virtually light speed. Again, the rule applies, negative and positive charges balance out. This more or less proves that electrons are the charge carriers, the term "carriers" implying that they are in motion, and not the "holes", the positive ions.