Inertia and Relativity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, Dec 22, 2017.

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    From that article: "Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass," So... what was the electron mass again?
    Also, note the "hypothetical" in the first sentence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    As the radius will decrease, its mass-density \(\frac{m}{V} \) will increase.

    So what.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    Are you suggesting electrons have variable radii? (Note: Planck particles are defined as having a fixed radius.)

    The existence of electron is quite well proven. So, why do you think the concept of a Planck particle hasn't been connected to electrons before by scientists?
     
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    If your hypo says electron radius is 1544 fm, then something wrong with your hypo.
     
  9. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Why do you think so? Can you elaborate?
     
  10. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Seems you are not able to justify your statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant . See the equations for rest mass of electron in this link. Here \(R_\infty=\frac{m_ec_o\alpha^2}{2h}=\frac{\alpha^2}{2\lambda_e} \). So \(m_e=\frac{h}{\lambda_ec_o} \). From my equations \(m_er_e=\frac{4\hbar}{c} \). So \(r_e=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{\lambda_ec_o}{h}=\frac{4\lambda_e}{2\pi} \). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength. \(\frac{\lambda_e}{2\pi}=386fm \) . So, \(r_e=4 \times 386=1544fm \).
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2018
  11. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Hansda;

    Your post #17
    Actually with this equality you can prove anything.....literally anything.

    For example, mass is invariant but not the w, consider two neighborhood electrons spinning at same w, and you as observer park yourself on one of the electrons, so for the other electron you will see w = 0, and hence as per your equality mc^2 = 0, so electron mass = 0. Do you see that your proof of r = 1544 fm, fails in #17 itself?
     
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Seems you are getting the point.

    Here w is with respect to its spin axis. Intrinsic spin w can not be zero.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,200
    Wow. If nothing else demonstrates that hansda doesn't understand science or math, this sure does.

    Next he's going to provide a proof that 1=2.
     
  14. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Seems, you know science or math better. Did you observe anything wrong with my equation? Did you observe anything wrong in my analysis in post #247?

    How?
     
  15. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    This your equation is incorrect, Hansda. I will tell you something step by step.

    1. E = mc2 is primarly SR baby. SR emphasizes that all physical laws are same in all inertial frames. So by using E = mc2, you acknowledge validity of SR.

    2. Mass is invariant, that means E = mc^2 will remain same in all inertial frames.

    3. w is not invariant, that changes from frame to frame, L is also not invariant.

    You can make a claim that it is intrinsic spin, but then dont about frame/Axis.

    4. Earth also spins around its axis, so can we say that for earth also E = mc2=iw2kw (whatever)?
     
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Seems your logic is not correct.

    Do you think SR wrong? Einstein used Lorentz Transformation(LT) to prove his equation \(E=mc^2 \).

    So?

    The intrinsic spin can change. I have explained this in my paper. This may cause increase of mass and time dilation at relativistic speed. Thats why I say LT, basically is a quantum phenimena.

    My equation also can be applied to the Earth.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,200
    Rajesh has been perma-banned as a sock-puppet of a previously banned member.
     
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Ohh. I was not knowing this.
     

Share This Page