Inertia and Relativity

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

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    So a muon is smaller than an electron (and rotating faster, angularly speaking)? And a tauon yet smaller than that (and even faster in rotation)? Is there a minimum size, and thus a maximum mass a fundamental particle can have, and a maximum angular rotation speed?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    So now you are asserting the existence of a super fluidic aether as well?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    I have a set of four equations with four constants. massive, spinning particles can follow these equations.
     
  8. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Did I say that?
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    So what's the minimum size of a fundamental particle then?

    You implied it, by using that particular source, and by answering in the affirmative in your post #142.
     
  10. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    This all depend as per my equations.


    You asked a question. I just answered that.
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    And you equations say...?

    No, you responded to it, you didn't actually answer it. So I'll ask you again: do you believe there is a super fluidic aether, just as the author of your linked derivation is working from?
     
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    As per my equations \(r_e=1544fm \). Proton radius \(r_p=0.84fm \). \(\frac{r_e}{r_p}=\frac{1544}{0.84}\simeq1838 \). This is very close to \(1836=\frac{m_p}{m_e} \).
     
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    My equations are \(E=mc^2=hf=Iw^2k_2=Lwk_2 \) (1); \(I=mr^2k \) (2); \(c=k_1rw \) (3); \(w=2\pi fk_3 \) (4).


    I am more interested with his math.
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    Well, I guess we're done here. Your number of \(r_e=1544 fm\) has been experimentally falsified, as I pointed out earlier; your radius is many million times too large. Conclusion: your hypothesis is proven wrong.

    And what do they say about the minimum size of fundamental particles?

    But his math comes from initial assumptions. He seems to be describing a particular situation (where the torques of the proton and electron cancel each other), which appears to stem from his initial assumptions about protons being vortices in a super fluidic aether. You can't just use his math (especially if there are not-so-standard quantities like "effective torque arm" involved) and ignore the initial assumptions that went into it. You have to demonstrate that his math holds up even without those initial assumptions.
     
  15. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    You can check constancy of \(mr=\frac{4\hbar}{c} \) with proton mass and radius.


    From my equations \(L=Iw=mr^2kw=mr\frac{k}{k_1}k_1rw=mrc\frac{k}{k_1} \). Consider \(hf=Lwk_2=L2\pi fk_3 \) or \(L=\frac{\hbar}{k_2k_3} \).We can write \(\frac{\hbar}{k_2k_3}=mrc\frac{k}{k_1} \) or \(m=\frac{\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}\frac{1}{k_1k_3} \). Considering \(k_1k_3=\frac{1}{4} \), we can write \(m=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r} \). So as \(r \) decreases, \(m \) will increase.


    The author can better clarify your doubts.
     
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    Sure, it's consistent, but it's still wrong because it's contradicted by experimental evidence.

    You keep dodging the question. What do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

    Sure, so why don't you contact him to find out if his equations and derivations can be used in your scenario?
     
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Which experimental evidence? Proton radius or electron radius?

    I think Planck distance can be the theoretical minimal distance.

    I found his equations and my equations are matching. He might have seen my equations.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    See post #133, which referenced the evidence posted back in post #57.

    But what do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

    No, your equations don't merely match: you used his equations to back up your claims, thus suggesting that there's a super fluid aether, and that the proton is a vortex in this aether. As I said: you can't use his equations without also accepting his initial assumptions.
     
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    So you talk about electron radius. I dont think that experiment is complete. There may be experimental error also.


    Well minimum or maximum radius should be such that tangential speed does not exceed c.


    He observed \(mr \) as constant. I am also observing \( mr\) as constant.
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    Except that there isn't something wrong with it, or at the very least, you haven't shown anything of the sorts. You're just making baseless claims and assertions because experimental evidence has already disproven your hypothesis.

    Also remember that this is the same type of experimental set-up you touted as proof that the electron has a non-zero radius (although that statement turned out to be unsourced). Why wasn't that experimental error too?

    But what do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

    But are you also claiming that the proton is a vortex in a super fluid aether?
     
  21. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    That experiment has no math in it, to back up their result. Anyway, I have already proven that your superluminal electron tangential speed claim as wrong.

    Do you have any math for this?

    Consider \(E= mc^2=hf\). So, \(m=\frac{hf}{c^2} \). Earlier we observed \(mr=\frac{4\hbar}{c} \). So \(m=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r} \). We can write \(\frac{hf}{c^2}=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r} \) or \(r=\frac{4c}{2\pi f}=\frac{4\lambda}{2\pi} \). Thus minimum radius correspond to minimum \(\lambda \) or maximum \( f\).

    Dont go by the words. Words may be confusing. Go by the math. Has he used any math for ether?
     
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,505
    Irrelevant; experimental data trumps mathematics when it comes to reality.

    Well, the thing is, typically, at some point during that calculation, one uses the radius of the particle. As I've proven, the value of the radius you are using is many orders of magnitude off, and proven to be incorrect. So I strongly suspect your conclusion is incorrect in exactly the same way.

    You are the one claiming that one experiment is wrong, and the other is right. It is you who has to do the proving.

    You once again haven't answer the question: that's merely the radius as a function of frequency or wavelength. My question is: what's the absolute minimum radius that a fundamental particle can have?

    Well, has he? I mean, you are using his math, so you should have already checked that out.

    Not only that, but you're wrong. Let me illustrate: assume all particles are massless. Then: \(E=pc\). Look! I've just proven \(E=mc^2\) wrong! Words (and context) is important, because it can change what particular variables mean, or in which circumstances they are valid. For example, if he used particular definitions, simplifications, or approximations that are only valid if there is super fluid aether, then this results are only valid under those particular circumstances. By using this equations, you are then importing those circumstances into your hypothesis. You can't just take a bunch of maths without context, throw it on a pile, and get anything trustworthy out of it. Thinking otherwise is extremely naïve, and is a clear sign of crackpottery.
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    If you still insists that electron tangential speed is superluminal; this violates SR.

    What kind of answer you expect. You can give some example.


    I did not observe any math for erher.
     

Share This Page