Inertia and Relativity

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

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    Erm, yeah? That's the point of the argument?

    Your equations suggest that there is a minimum radius for any possible fundamental particle; a radius smaller than which any (fundamental) particle cannot exist. This would put a lower bound on the size of any hypothetical (fundamental) particle, which would be of major importance. Such features are therefore extremely important to work out. Have you worked out this particular consequence of your hypothesis, and checked that it is compatible with reality?

    Are you sure you're looking at the right link?
    "The proton is a vortex in the yet to be defined super fluid aether"
    "From standard quantized angular momentum or quantization of circulation of a super fluid,"
    Sounds pretty super fluid aether-y to me!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    So, now you understood, why tangential speed of electron can not be superluminal.

    My equations suggest, minimum radius of a particle will correspond to maximum mass.

    I could not find any quantification or math for ether. If you have observed any, let me know.

    Still you are getting entangled in the words for ether. The author himself is admitting that ether is yet to be defined.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    Ah, I see what the problem is here: you've completely and utter failed to grasp the argument. The argument goes as follows: calculate the tangential speed of the electron (using the proper radius, of course!). Then you'll find that that speed is larger than the speed of light. This is of course, as you've already pointed out, in violation of SR. Therefore, modeling the electron as a sphere where the rotation of said sphere generates its spin is in violation with SR.

    That's trivially obvious from your equations, and it doesn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it:
    Your equations suggest that there is a minimum radius for any possible fundamental particle; a radius smaller than which any (fundamental) particle cannot exist. This would put a lower bound on the size of any hypothetical (fundamental) particle, which would be of major importance. Such features are therefore extremely important to work out. Have you worked out this particular consequence of your hypothesis, and checked that it is compatible with reality?

    The equations are given in context of the super fluid aether scenario; all derivations are therefore only valid for the aether scenario, unless proven otherwise. Read the link more carefully, and take note of the sentence-fragments I quoted.

    The author is working purely in the super fluid aether scenario. If you just copy-paste his formulae, so are you. If aether is still undefined, that means you are now working with a not-rigidly defined scenario, which completely undermines your claims.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    So to generate a finite magnetic moment, electron tangential speed need not be superluminal.

    According to my equations the minimum radius \( r \) will be \( r^2=(\frac{4}{\pi c})^2(\frac{hG}{2c}) \) or \( r=\frac{4}{c\pi}\sqrt{\frac{hG}{2c}} \).

    In his equations he has used \(m_p, r_p, m_e, h, 2\pi, c \) values. These are all known values and math symbols. How they are related with ether?

    Show me, where I have copy pasted from his equations?
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    How did you reach that conclusion?

    So the minimum radius of a fundamental particles is, according to you, several orders of magnitudes larger than the upper limit set on the electron radius. Ergo, there is conclusive experimental data that disproves your hypothesis.

    In the same way as I have proven \(E=mc^2\) to be false in post #159: when you restrict yourself to a specific scenario, your conclusions don't automatically hold outside of that scenario.

    You are applying his formulae without considering the context and scenario in which they were derived; you've done this in the past few posts, consistently.
     
  9. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    How you came to this conclusion?
     
  10. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    Because \(\frac{4}{c\pi}\sqrt{\frac{hG}{2c}}\) is larger than \(10^-22\) meters?
     
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Seems you are wrong. This is in the Planck's scale.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    Please give any evidence or proof for your claim that I am wrong.
     
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    And as I've said before, you can compare your minimum radius with the upper limit on the electron radius too: the upper limit of the electron has been experimentally demonstrated to be much lower that your minimum radius. In other words, your hypothesis for how the electron works has already been disproven.
     
  15. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Minimum radius will be in the range of \( 10^-35 meters\) which is much smaller than \(10^-22 meters \).
     
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    That's funny; I calculate your value to be \(1.7\times 10^{-18}\) meters, not "in the range of \(10^-35 meters\)"?
     
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Your calculation wrong. You have not compared my equation with Planck's length equation.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    Yes, and now please calculate the numerical value of \(r\) that results, as I did in (amongst others) post #175. You'll find that it's about \(1.7\times 10^{-18}\) meters, thus falsifying your hypothesis.
     
  21. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Planck's length, \((l_p)^2=\frac{\hbar G}{c^3} \). So, \(r^2=\frac{16}{\pi}(l_p)^2 \) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length . So \(r=\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}l_p \)
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,501
    Huh, well, will you look at that? It's an interpretation-bug in Wolfram! http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4sqr((planck constant) G/(2c))/(c pi)
    It's just a shame that you couldn't just give the numerical value over a dozen posts ago, so we wouldn't have gone through all this. It seems like your minimum radius for fundamental particles indeed haven't been falsified after all.

    I guess that wraps it all up, more or less. While the minimum radius predicted by your equations turned out to be okay, you appear to be working under the assumption of a super fluid aether for which there is no evidence (post #165), your conclusions about the value of the electron radius are wrong (post #151), your claims about the non-zero-ness of the electron radius are unfounded (post #61), and what you wrote in post #39 about the electron radius was incorrect (post #50).
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    So, now you are blaming wolfram for your mistake.
     

Share This Page