[talanum1]

"Momentum charge" is the charge necessary for a particle to be able to carry momentum. It's like an electric charge. A photon has to have momentum charge to be able to follow a curved path in curved spacetime.

[Bored chemist]

"Momentum charge" is the charge necessary for a particle to be able to carry momentum

No
"Momentum charge" is something you made up.
The thing that allows particles to carry momentum is called "mass".

[talanum1]

The thing that allows particles to carry momentum is called "mass".

Yes, but a photon is massless, yet it must have something like mass. I chose "momentum charge" as a reasonable name.

So, I take it you don't have a better idea.

[Bored chemist]

yet it must have something like mass.

Yes... it has...  mass.
Confusingly, it is also massless.

No need to make up names.

[Kryptid]

"Momentum charge" is the charge necessary for a particle to be able to carry momentum.

Please provide evidence that a "charge" is necessary in order for an object to carry momentum.

yet it must have something like mass.

That "something" is called energy. E=mc².

[talanum1]

That "something" is called energy. E=mc2.

Energy is just a number. It must have something tangible: something a force can push on.

Please provide evidence that a "charge" is necessary in order for an object to carry momentum.

Momentum or mass is a basic property of particles. If it has no momentum charge or mass charge a force cannot act on it: F = dp/dt. So one can't prove it by finding a particle without momentum or mass charge.

[Bored chemist]

Energy is just a number.

No, it's a quantity.
It has units-  Joules.

momentum charge or mass charge

Inventing another  phrase  doesn't make things better.

[talanum1]

No, it's a quantity.

You can't apply a force to a quantity. "Quantity" is abstract about something.

So it doesn't make sense to say a particle with quantity follows a curved path because it has quantity. It must have something tangible corresponding to the quantity.

Inventing another  phrase  doesn't make things better.

What else are you going to call it: you can't call it "mass charge".

[Kryptid]

You can't apply a force to a quantity. "Quantity" is abstract about something.

Charge is a quantity as well.

So it doesn't make sense to say a particle with quantity follows a curved path because it has quantity. It must have something tangible corresponding to the quantity.

How are you defining "tangible"?

What else are you going to call it: you can't call it "mass charge".

How about simply "mass"? Photons have relativistic mass.

[talanum1]

How are you defining "tangible"?

A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere. Thus equivalent to a set with additional structure.

How about simply "mass"? Photons have relativistic mass.

I guess one can call it "relativistic mass". I just think it is paradoxical since one also calls a photon "massless".

[Bored chemist]

You can't apply a force to a quantity.

You also can't apply force to energy.
So that fits just fine with energy being a quantity.

What else are you going to call it: you can't call it "mass charge".

First, before you invent a name for it, you have to demonstrate that it's actually real.

A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere. Thus related to a set with additional structure.

How are you defining
"A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere. Thus related to a set with additional structure."
?

I just think it is paradoxical since one also calls a photon "massless".

Photons are uncharged, yet you seem happy to say they have a charge.

[Bored chemist]

So it doesn't make sense to say a particle with quantity follows a curved path because it has quantity. It must have something tangible corresponding to the quantity.

That's so general as to be hard to interpret but, for example, charge is a quantity.
And you can say
" a particle with quantity charge follows a curved path because it has  quantity charge "
Mass is also a quantity.
"a particle with  quantity mass follows a curved path because it has  quantity  mass"

[talanum1]

First, before you invent a name for it, you have to demonstrate that it's actually real.

They showed it is real with the experiment about bent starlight.

How are you defining
"A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere. Thus related to a set with additional structure."

A circle and Riemann Sphere are defined in mathematics books. For "left out spacetime node" I will say it is a hole in the circle in the Riemann Sphere. This is equivalent to a set with additional structures.

Photons are uncharged, yet you seem happy to say they have a charge.

I call all properties (not spin, position or velocity) "charges" since I code them using identical methods on a circle in a Riemann Sphere.

charge is a quantity.

I define them as quantities with additional structures.

[Bored chemist]

They showed it is real with the experiment about bent starlight.

Yes, they showed that it has mass.

A circle and Riemann Sphere are defined in mathematics books.

And they are abstract concepts with no physical reality.
I didn't think you liked abstract things...

"Quantity" is abstract about something.

For "left out spacetime node" I will say it is a hole in the circle in the Riemann Sphere.

So, you have defined it in terms of a hole in something which does not exist.

That's not really progress...

This is equivalent to a set with additional structures.

How do you define "a set with additional structures."?

I call all properties (not spin, position or velocity) "charges" since I code them using identical methods on a circle in a Riemann Sphere.

OK, so you deliberately choose to misuse a word, so you can apply it to something that does not exist.

Have you mistaken this for a creative writing forum?

I define them as quantities with additional structures.

That's not a definition; it is word salad.

[Kryptid]

A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere.

Can you rephrase that in a way that the average person can understand?

I just think it is paradoxical since one also calls a photon "massless".

The kind of mass that a photon doesn't have is "invariant" or "rest" mass.

[talanum1]

Yes, they showed that it has mass.

It can be interpreted that they showed it has momentum. E = pc.

And they are abstract concepts with no physical reality.

I have proof they are real. Not objective proof.

How do you define "a set with additional structures."?

Just as the words say, it comes from a mathematics book. The structures are a metric plus a map that maps physical space to a Riemann Sphere, presumably the edges and nodes of a graph too.

OK, so you deliberately choose to misuse a word,

I've seen the term "mass charge" used, I don't remember where.

That's not a definition; it is word salad.

Yes, it is not a definition, just a description of a definition.

Can you rephrase that in a way that the average person can understand?

A hole in a circle in a Riemann Sphere. A Riemann Sphere is the Complex plane rolled into a sphere such that the plane maps to the sphere by stereographic projection. A sphere is a 2-dimensional surface of a ball.

[Kryptid]

I have proof they are real. Not objective proof.

Please show this proof.

A hole in a circle in a Riemann Sphere. A Riemann Sphere is the Complex plane rolled into a sphere such that the plane maps to the sphere by stereographic projection.

That didn't help. At all.

[Bored chemist]

It can be interpreted that they showed it has momentum. E = pc.

If you like.
But it certainly doesn't say anything about "charge", does it?

I have proof they are real. Not objective proof.

So, not actually proof then.
Why did you think that would help?

The structures are a metric plus a map that maps physical space to a Riemann Sphere, presumably the edges and nodes of a graph too.

Yes, but how do you define it in this context- in a way that actually helps to say what the thing actually is?

I've seen the term "mass charge" used

It's probably in the police manual
So what , that's no excuse to misuse it.

A hole in a circle in a Riemann Sphere.

So, it's (assuming it's small) a circle on a plane where one of the axes is imaginary.
Do you understand how that rules out the idea that it is "real" in either the colloquial or the mathematical senses?

just a description of a definition.

No.
"word salad" is a description of your definition.
Please try harder.

[Malamute Lover]

A circle and Riemann Sphere are defined in mathematics books. For "left out spacetime node" I will say it is a hole in the circle in the Riemann Sphere. This is equivalent to a set with additional structures.

A structure is a set endowed with feature(s). It is improper terminology to say ‘a set with additional structures’, A very simple example of a structure would be the alphabet, arranged in alphabetical order. The 26 letters are the set independent of any order.  The endowed feature is the ordering.

A circle is the set of points equidistant from a given point. A circle can be defined on the surface of a Riemann Sphere by specifying the central point and the radius. Note that the surface of a Riemann Sphere does not have a constant metric but compresses asymptotically as the ∞ pole is approached. A circle drawn on representation of a Riemann sphere will generally not look like a circle but will be ‘squashed’ in the direction of the ∞ pole.

Please explain what you intended to be understood by ‘a circle in the Riemann Sphere and how it fits into your explanation. Presumably you meant ‘on’ and not ‘in’. There is no ‘in’ relative to a Riemann Sphere. It is all surface.

By describing a ‘left out spacetime node’ as a hole in the Riemann Sphere. It would appear that you mean some region of the Riemann Sphere cannot be the result of any calculation, that the coordinates interior to this region are forbidden in some fashion.  Can you shed any light on what these coordinates might be and how you came to determine them? And how does the ‘circle’ come into play?

Also why are you representing spacetime as a Riemann Sphere?  The time dimension requires the use of imaginary numbers. But you need three real dimensions to represent spatial coordinates. How do you map these three dimensions onto a Riemann Sphere?

And what features are you endowing to the complex (involving imaginary numbers) structure (set with features) of the Riemann Sphere that results in a ‘hole’?

In short, do you really know what your are talking about as opposed to just throwing fancy words around?

[talanum1]

In short, do you really know what your are talking about as opposed to just throwing fancy words around?

I know what I'm talking about: I got it in pictures at an attachment with the post: "Quantum Gravity Follows?" in this forum. You sound like you would be interested in it.

It is improper terminology to say ‘a set with additional structures’

So it's a set endowed with features. The statement is standard in Mathematics.

A circle drawn on representation of a Riemann sphere will generally not look like a circle but will be ‘squashed’ in the direction of the ∞ pole.

No. A circle through the point at infinity will look like a circle, it will just be denser closer to infinity but a denser line is still a line. This is in the standard representation of a sphere in a coordinate system with the z-axis pointing 45 degrees downwards. Maybe in some other projection, it will appear squashed.

Please explain what you intended to be understood by ‘a circle in the Riemann Sphere and how it fits into your explanation. Presumably, you meant ‘on’ and not ‘in’. There is no ‘in’ relative to a Riemann Sphere. It is all surface.

I can talk about a line "in" a plane if the plane is infinitesimally thick (the thickness is non-zero).

By describing a ‘left out spacetime node’ as a hole in the Riemann Sphere. It would appear that you mean some region of the Riemann Sphere cannot be the result of any calculation, that the coordinates interior to this region are forbidden in some fashion.  Can you shed any light on what these coordinates might be and how you came to determine them? And how does the ‘circle’ come into play?

The circle is like a line of longitude. The holes are holes on a line through the center of the sphere and perpendicular to the momentum vector of the particle, where the holes are located where this line intersects the sphere. I determined them by reasoning about the production of an accelerating force on a photon (protophoton: a photon not yet traveling at the speed of light).

Also why are you representing spacetime as a Riemann Sphere?  The time dimension requires the use of imaginary numbers. But you need three real dimensions to represent spatial coordinates. How do you map these three dimensions onto a Riemann Sphere?

I propose copying one dimension of space and one of time into a Riemann Sphere, resulting in a particle when endowed with charges.

And what features are you endowing to the complex (involving imaginary numbers) structure (set with features) of the Riemann Sphere that results in a ‘hole’?

Points of space on the circle versus left out points (infinitesimal breaks in the circle).

Why did you think that would help?

You would just be able to reproduce the proof if you are telepathic, knows Earth's voice, and if your mind knows how to copy spacetime into a Riemann Sphere.

Yes, but how do you define it in this context- in a way that actually helps to say what the thing actually is?

It is actually a Riemann Sphere with left out points.

Do you understand how that rules out the idea that it is "real" in either the colloquial or the mathematical senses?

No, there are many physical objects that are modeled with imaginary numbers.

Please try harder.

I got it defined in a picture at the post listed above.

Please show this proof.

See 10 lines of text upwards.

That didn't help. At all.

The Complex plane is two real lines at right angles to one another, with one line multiplied by . Stereographic projection is: take a point in the plane and draw a line from the point to the north pole of the sphere. Then the point where the line intersects the sphere is where the point maps to.