# Inertia and Relativity

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

Messages:
2,424

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
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.

5. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

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

So what.

7. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
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?

Messages:
1,525

9. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Why do you think so? Can you elaborate?

10. ### hansdaValued 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. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
Hansda;

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. ### hansdaValued 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. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,554
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. ### hansdaValued 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?

Messages:
2,424
16. ### RajeshTrivediValued 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. ### hansdaValued 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. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,554
Rajesh has been perma-banned as a sock-puppet of a previously banned member.

19. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

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